Speaker’s Statement

Lindsay Hoyle: I wish to inform the House that I have received a letter from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), informing me of her resignation as the Chair of the Petitions Committee. I therefore declare the Chair vacant. I can now announce the arrangements for the elections for the Chair of the Petitions Committee and the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, which was declared vacant on Monday. Nominations for both elections will close at noon on Tuesday 17 October. Nomination forms will be available from the Vote Office, the Table Office and the Public Bill Office. Only Members from the Labour party may be candidates in the elections. If there is more than one candidate in either election, the ballot will take place on Wednesday 18 October, between 11 am and 2.30 pm, in the Aye Division Lobby. Briefing notes with more information will be made available in the Vote Office.

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Northern Ireland

The Secretary of State was asked—

Police Funding

Mary Glindon: What recent discussions he has held with the Police Service of Northern Ireland on the potential impact of changes in the level of funding for policing in Northern Ireland on crime.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Today is my first anniversary in this amazing role—one of the very best jobs in Government. Some things, alas, have not changed in that time. Obviously, Stormont is not sitting. Some important anniversaries have been marked, including the 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and some things have really moved on and changed, including the Windsor framework resolving many of the issues with the Northern Ireland protocol, and indeed my former shadow, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle). I warmly welcome his replacement, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), to his place, and indeed his deputy, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson). May I place on the record my thanks to the hon. Member for Hove and his deputy for all the work they did with me in the course of the last year?
Policing in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter, as is the funding for it, and it is the responsibility of Northern Ireland Departments to allocate resources as they see fit.

Mary Glindon: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his anniversary. In July, the former chief constable warned that the force was at risk of being left unrecognisable due to budgetary pressures that could see the loss of more than 1,000 officers by 2025. With the force already at lower-than-ideal numbers and the recent data leak likely to have an impact, what discussions is the Secretary of State having with the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland and with the PSNI about how those pressures can be eased during this difficult time for the force?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I had a number of conversations with the former chief constable about this issue. The budget for 2023-24 gives the Department of Justice a total allocation of £1.2 billion. Obviously, recognising the unique security situation in Northern Ireland, the UK Government make additional contributions to the PSNI’s counter-terrorism work through the additional security funding. The UK contribution for 2022-23 is £32 million. I am fully aware of the obvious issues that we talked about in the recent urgent question, and I am sure that we will get on to those a bit later in questions.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

Simon Hoare: I wish my right hon. Friend a happy anniversary. I also thank, as he did, the outgoing shadow team and welcome the new. He is right to reference the recent data breach, which will have very much changed the backdrop of the morale of the police in Northern Ireland—and not just officers, but those in support services. Budgets are under pressure, as we know, but the security and safety of serving officers and those who work for the PSNI is always important, particularly post the data breach, given the potential risks from dissidents that that creates. Can he assure me that he will do all he can to deliver safety equipment, protection and security for those who are feeling most vulnerable at this time?

Chris Heaton-Harris: Yes, I absolutely can. I look forward to continuing to work closely with the PSNI’s senior leadership team, who have a wealth of experience and are dedicated to keeping the people of Northern Ireland safe. I know that they are continuing to work closely to ensure the very best possible response to this breach. Just to give a tiny bit of detail, very briefly, the PSNI and security partners will continue to take proportionate action to protect their officers, staff and families and they have full Government support in responding to the data breach. At the moment, our focus remains on providing specialist support and expertise to the PSNI from across Government.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his first anniversary and welcome the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) to his new role as shadow Secretary of State. We look forward to working with him.
This Secretary of State has rightly said that many aspects of policing in Northern Ireland are devolved, but the data breach is a matter of national security because it includes officers who work with the Security Service in a very specialist role involving counter-terrorism and intelligence in Northern Ireland. Will he assure the House that whatever resources are required by the PSNI, not only to fulfil that function but to protect its own officers and staff, will be made available?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for congratulating me on my anniversary. I was hoping that he might give me a different anniversary present, by heading back to Stormont, but perhaps we can have that conversation later.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: indicated dissent.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I have to ask, haven’t I?
The right hon. Gentleman asks a very sensible and serious question, for which I thank him. I obviously cannot answer some elements of his question in public, but any additional funding required by the PSNI would be submitted through an established process. We are currently at the very beginning of that established process, so it would not be right to pre-empt that. The Government are clear that security is paramount, and our focus remains on the items I set out. It will move on, but it is currently specialist support and expertise in response to the latest assessments.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: I thank the Secretary of State for that response. In his earlier answer he referred to the PSNI’s senior leadership team. For the record, my party fully supports the PSNI in its impartial implementation of policing across all communities in Northern Ireland, but we are in a crisis situation, not only with the data breach but with the loss of confidence internally within the PSNI. Although it is the responsibility of the Policing Board to make appointments, does he agree that perhaps what we need now, in the absence of a chief constable, is for someone to be brought in who has the experience and leadership credentials that are needed in the interim period, pending the appointment of a new chief constable, to take control of this situation?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question, the way he poses it and the point behind it. The senior management team is a strong and effective unit, and the Policing Board has a lot on its plate at this point in time. I believe it has even launched a review into how the Policing Board itself operates. I am quite sure that questions are being asked about what can be done in this space but, as of now, I can update the House only on what I have done.

Cost of Living

Patrick Grady: What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the increased cost of living on people in Northern Ireland.

Chris Stephens: What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the increased cost of living on people in Northern Ireland.

Steven Baker: The UK Government are acutely aware of the cost of living pressures experienced in all parts of the UK since the onset of war in Ukraine. We provided an estimated £2 billion of financial support to Northern Ireland, including more than £1 billion in the form of the energy price guarantee and the additional £600 payment to help households with the rising cost of energy. Tackling inflation continues to be a top priority for this Government.

Patrick Grady: Every country in the world is having to deal with the impact of the war in Ukraine and the impact of the pandemic, but only one country is having to deal with the impact of Brexit, which is what is driving up prices and the cost of living for people in Northern Ireland and across the UK, isn’t it?

Steven Baker: I am inclined just to say no. The reality is that this conversation will keep going to and fro. We have left the European Union and we are staying out of the European Union. Our task is to make sure that we flourish as a nation outside the EU, and I wish the hon. Gentleman would just get behind it and move on.

Chris Stephens: In June this year, according to research by the Trussell Trust, one in six people across Northern Ireland faced hunger, with nearly half of those referred to Trussell Trust food banks being children under the age of 16. In Scotland, primary school children get a £120 uniform grant and secondary school pupils get a £150 uniform grant, but the amount in Wales in Northern Ireland is almost a quarter of that. Given that parents are choosing between spending money on back-to-school supplies or on food, what steps is the Minister taking to ease the cost of living pressures on families in Northern Ireland?

Steven Baker: As I said, we provided a large sum of money to ease cost of living pressures in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman mentions food banks, which are very much on my mind, given the scale of the food bank in Wycombe. I am very well aware of the cost of living pressures in Northern Ireland. We continue to put large sums of money into Northern Ireland, but it would be much better to deal with all these issues in the presence of a restored Executive.

Oliver Heald: May I join in the congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his first anniversary? I also thank the new shadow Secretary of State for the huge contribution he has made as vice-chairman of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly. In welcoming the money that has been provided to Northern Ireland to help with the cost of living pressures, does the Minister agree that it would be even better, and more efficiently spent, if the Executive were back up and running?

Steven Baker: Yes, I absolutely do; my right hon. and learned Friend is right on that. Time and again we are asked to intervene, and every time we are asked to intervene that is a call for direct rule. We do not intend to get into direct rule. It would be far better if local decisions were taken by a locally accountable Executive.

Paul Holmes: The Government have shown their commitment to supporting the people of Northern Ireland through the recent increase in the cost of living. In the absence of an Executive—we all accept  that one is absolutely necessary—will my hon. Friend assure me that the Government will continue to intervene where necessary for the people of Northern Ireland?

Steven Baker: We will continue to work for the people of Northern Ireland, respecting the devolution settlement. For example, in recognition of the cost of living pressures faced by workers across the UK, the Government increased the national minimum wage rate by 9.7%, to £10.42 per hour for workers aged 23 and over, at the spring Budget. We will continue to be seized of the need to help those least well off.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

Richard Thomson: The cost of living crisis is clearly continuing to bite hard in Northern Ireland, with footfall at stores across Northern Ireland falling by 5% throughout August. What steps is the Department taking to enable people to take full advantage of the highly privileged economic status and market access that Northern Ireland now has, which this Government have deprived to the rest of the UK?

Steven Baker: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s use of the term “deprived”, but I am happy to tell him that next week we have the Northern Ireland investment summit. We are determined to attract private sector investment into Northern Ireland and to promote inclusion in that growth. Northern Ireland has a fantastically vibrant economy, and I very much hope that the least well-off will have opportunities through our investment in skills to develop themselves and to secure more better paying jobs in Northern Ireland, so that they can move on.

Economic Trends

Laurence Robertson: What recent assessment he has made of trends in the Northern Ireland economy; and if he will make a statement.

Steven Baker: We routinely monitor trends in the Northern Ireland economy. It has the ingredients required for economic success: exceptional talent, creativity and innovation. Although challenges persist, recent indicators suggest resilience and the potential for growth. This Government remain committed to fostering a productive environment for economic development and prosperity in Northern Ireland. I look forward to our investment summit between 12 and 13 September—next week—which is a fantastic opportunity to showcase Northern Ireland’s economic potential to the world.

Laurence Robertson: I thank the Minister for that encouraging response. He will be aware that Northern Ireland’s largest trading partner by a very long way is Great Britain. It is therefore important that there is frictionless trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so will he update the House on what discussions he has had on the future operation of the green channel?

Steven Baker: One of our priorities now is the successful implementation of the Windsor framework and that green channel. We will continue to have conversations with colleagues in the Cabinet Office who lead the  Windsor framework taskforce. I assure my hon. Friend that we are determined to ensure that that system works as seamlessly for everyone.

Stephen Farry: Will the Minister confirm that at next week’s investment conference the Government will proactively market Northern Ireland’s dual market access under the Windsor framework?

Steven Baker: Yes, I can confirm that. I am absolutely determined that we shall do so. Indeed, next week I shall chair a session on that issue. This is not just about access as of right to the UK market and as a privilege to the EU market; it is also about being under our services regulation, which is an advantage, in combination with access to our free trade agreements, such as the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. This is a unique opportunity in all of the world, including right across the EU, and I am convinced that he and I, and we all, should make the most of it.

Restoration of Power Sharing

Andy McDonald: What steps his Department is taking to help restore power sharing in Northern Ireland.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and it is good to see him in his place. Our focus remains on delivering for the people of Northern Ireland, who expect and deserve locally elected decision makers to address the issues that matter to them. I continue to engage regularly with all party leaders and speak to them very regularly indeed.

Andy McDonald: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, but the lack of a functioning devolved Government in Northern Ireland means that there are direct consequences for its people, as is evidenced by the highest waiting lists in the UK, which would not be tolerated elsewhere. In the absence of a restoration of power sharing, there needs to be a plan B—what is it?

Chris Heaton-Harris: Obviously, all my energies are spent on trying to resolve the issues in order to allow the DUP to come back to Stormont and get the Executive up and running. There are myriad options available if we were to go down different routes, but I am afraid none of them is as ideal as Stormont functioning and the institutions of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement all being stood up.

Julian Smith: There is a big opportunity over the coming weeks to restore the Northern Ireland Executive. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that key to that is the UK, Dublin and the EU listening harder to the concerns of the DUP about implementation of the Windsor agreement?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the former Secretary of State for that question; he is absolutely right. We have been listening in great detail to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), the DUP leader, and his team of negotiators over the course of  the summer. We have had very detailed negotiations and I believe we are homing in on what is actually required. That might well mean we need conversations elsewhere, but let us see where we get to in the course of the next couple of days.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Hilary Benn: The Windsor framework, which was agreed seven months ago, was a great achievement, but it was also intended to enable the restoration of power sharing in Northern Ireland. That has not happened. What is the Government’s plan? The Secretary of State refers to the conversations he is having, but what is the plan to get Stormont back up and running?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I sincerely welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his place and thank him for his question. Currently, there are issues with one particular political party. We are talking to that party on a very regular basis at this point in time. Those talks have moved forward substantially, but he would have to check in with the DUP leadership to see if I am correct. Just because the right hon. Gentleman cannot see that does not mean that it is not happening. One thing I have learned, as I have said many times from this Dispatch Box, is that just because talks are being held in a confidential manner does not mean that they are not taking place and moving forward.

Hilary Benn: The Secretary of State knows that there are concerns in the Unionist community about unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses trading with Great Britain. The Government said last month in the border target operating model that they are committed to that access, as we all are, and that:
“These arrangements will be enshrined and further strengthened in domestic legislation”.
Can he tell the House when that legislation will be introduced?

Chris Heaton-Harris: Hopefully in very short order, dependent on making sure we have got it exactly right, so it answers the questions and allows Stormont and the Executive to re-form.

Postal Communications: Customs

Jim Shannon: What steps he is taking to help ensure that postal communications between Britain and Northern Ireland are delivered without customs declarations.

Steven Baker: Under the Windsor framework, sending parcels to friends and family in Northern Ireland will be as smooth and easy as it is today, removing any burdensome paperwork, costs or delays. Northern Ireland consumers will be able to order from businesses in the rest of the UK and receive goods in the post as they do now, without customs processes or burdensome costs. This will maintain consumer choice for British goods in Northern Ireland. Businesses sending goods to other businesses will use our new green lane.

Jim Shannon: A number of constituents and consumers have contacted me to highlight that many eBay or Amazon providers will no longer ship to Northern Ireland as they state that they cannot afford the enhanced fees, demonstrating that Northern Ireland continues to be treated differently. It is costing small businesses and individuals the ability to shop around. What steps can the Minister take to revisit the framework with our EU counterparts, to ensure free and fair trade throughout the United Kingdom that is clear and easy to follow for all businesses?

Steven Baker: Under the protocol as it was, all parcels would have needed to complete full international customs processes. I believe that the suppliers to whom the hon. Gentleman refers will be making their plans under the protocol as it was. Under the Windsor framework, parcels to consumers will not be subject to those burdensome processes. He reminds us all that we need to redouble our efforts to communicate to suppliers the message that they will be able to take advantage of a new green lane and supply to consumers in Northern Ireland. It is a subject close to my heart, and I can see that it is extremely close to his too.

Public Finances

Aaron Bell: What steps his Department is taking to ensure the sustainability of Northern Ireland’s public finances.

Steven Baker: The Northern Ireland Budget (No. 2) Bill 2023-24 is progressing through Parliament and is due to be debated in the other House next week. The Secretary of State has used his powers to request information and advice from the Northern Ireland civil service on measures that could generate revenue and improve the sustainability of public finances.

Aaron Bell: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. I congratulate him and the Secretary of State on their anniversaries and pay tribute to them for all they have done in the past year.
Some have suggested that we could reform the Barnett formula to address the sustainability of public finances in Northern Ireland, but does my hon. Friend agree that that is not a silver bullet, and that trade-offs will need to be made to fund public services?

Steven Baker: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. This is a very important point. Although we will remain open to discussing proposals put to us by the Northern Ireland parties, it would not be a silver bullet to reform the Barnett formula. An Executive will still need to make trade-offs when they decide to spend scarce resources. Negotiations between the Welsh Government and the Treasury on a fiscal framework, which included an adjustment to the Barnett formula, took place over seven years, so, with the best will in the world, it is not an issue that can be solved overnight. What we need is a functioning Executive and we stand ready to work with that Executive. In the meantime, we will continue to engage with the Northern Ireland civil service on a range of measures that could improve fiscal sustainability.

Lindsay Hoyle: Let me welcome the shadow Minister.

Fleur Anderson: Early years services are vital for children to reach their potential, but they are underfunded and at risk in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK without a childcare strategy. According to the Department for Education, it was delayed again because early years faces potential significant budget reductions. When can hard-pressed families in Northern Ireland expect the childcare strategy? Will the Minister commit to early years services receiving the increased multi-year funding that is needed to invest in children?

Steven Baker: I am glad to welcome the hon. Lady to her place. As she knows, education is devolved in Northern Ireland and it is a matter for the Education Department there to take these decisions, but her point is well made, and I am confident that, when she makes her first visit to Northern Ireland, like me she will be engaging with all parties on just such issues.

Electricity Generation

Gregory Campbell: What recent discussions he has held with the Department for the Economy officials on electricity generation and supply after 30 September 2023.

Chris Heaton-Harris: My officials and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero are engaging with the Northern Ireland Department for the Economy to understand the facts and to assess any extra requirements. Energy is a devolved matter.

Gregory Campbell: I thank the Secretary of State for that response, but can he indicate to people who are concerned about recent newspaper speculation on the future of generation and supply in October and beyond that it is secure and that there will be no hiccup or hiatus between now and Christmas?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his supplementary question. Northern Ireland benefits from being part of the United Kingdom with access to electricity from Great Britain through the interconnector, and it also benefits from being part of the single electricity market on the island of Ireland. I and the Minister of State worked hard to ensure that that was preserved during the UK’s exit from the European Union. We are working very closely with all officials across Government here and in the Northern Ireland civil service to ensure that the right preparations are in place for the winter.

Veterinary Products and Horticultural Stock

Ian Paisley Jnr: What recent assessment he has made of the availability of (a) veterinary products and (b) horticultural stock in Northern Ireland.

Steven Baker: The cliff edge on veterinary medicines has been removed, protecting the supply of those medicines in Northern Ireland through to 2025, while we work through sustainable, long-term solutions. We are much more optimistic about reaching those solutions in the context of the Windsor framework. There will no longer be any  need for costly phytosanitary certificates for each movement of plants staying in the UK. We have paved the way for 11 banned plant species to move again by the time of the next planting season. These were priority cases identified by the industry itself, and we have progressed further cases since announcing the Windsor framework. We are working closely with a wide range of stakeholders to ensure that gardeners, farmers and growers can access plants and seeds from a wide variety of sources.

Ian Paisley Jnr: With regards to veterinary medicines, I fear the Minister’s sunny optimism may be somewhat misplaced. After all, his preferred stakeholder—Mr Bernard Van Goethem, the deputy director general for food sustainability—has made it abundantly clear to DEFRA and the UK Government that the negotiations on this matter are “over”. The deal is done. There will be no change to veterinary medicines. This means that insulin will no longer be available in Northern Ireland for animals. Veterinary medicines for botulism—144,000 were issued last year—will no longer be available. What will the Secretary of State and the Minister do about this?

Steven Baker: The hon. Gentleman has presented me with information about which I was not aware beforehand. I am certainly happy to look at what has been said, but what I would say to him is that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did the deal that no one said could be done. That has transformed the relationship with the European Union, and I am therefore confident that we will be able to deliver a deal on veterinary medicines. As we sometimes say, I do not recognise the information that the hon. Gentleman has presented. It is new to me, and I shall be glad to look at it, but we will certainly have to deliver a deal.

Theresa Villiers: The Ulster Farmers Union estimates that 1,700 veterinary medicines could be withdrawn from the market in Northern Ireland unless the Windsor framework is fixed. I urge the Minister to do that.

Steven Baker: Certainly. My right hon. Friend makes her point with great clarity. Of course, having made it on an occasion such as this, it has been heard by a wide range of Ministers, and I am confident that we will be able to redouble our efforts to deliver what we need on veterinary medicines.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Lindsay Hoyle: I welcome everybody back to Prime Minister’s questions.

Louie French: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 6 September.

Rishi Sunak: I would like to start by congratulating Sarina Wiegman and the Lionesses on their fantastic performance at the World cup. We are all incredibly proud of them. I also know that the whole House will join me in sending condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of Sergeant Graham Saville. It is  testament to his bravery that he died in the line of duty, and a terrible reminder of the work that the police do every day to keep us safe.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Louie French: The Labour party used to claim that it represents working-class people, but Labour’s ultra low emission zone expansion to Greater London will now hammer millions of working people with bills of £12.50 per day, or £4,500 per year. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is unacceptable that Londoners and those in surrounding counties face this regressive and unacceptable tax, and will he do everything that he can to help working people?

Rishi Sunak: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is disappointing that last week the Labour leader allowed the Labour Mayor to introduce ULEZ, charging hard-working people £12.50 every time they start their car, adding to the burden of the cost of living. All I can say is that while we focus on helping hard-working families, all the Labour leader does is punish them.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the Leader of the Opposition.

Keir Starmer: I join the Prime Minister in congratulating the Lionesses, and also in his comments about Sergeant Saville; I think we speak for the whole House when we speak on that subject.
I also extend the warmest welcome to my hon. Friend the new Labour Member for Selby and Ainsty (Keir Mather). He has already made history for the Labour party by overturning the largest Tory majority ever in a by-election. I also welcome the hon. Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Steve Tuckwell) and for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke).
The roof of Singlewell Primary School in Gravesend collapsed in May 2018. Thankfully, it happened at the weekend and no children were injured. The concrete ceiling was deemed dangerous and liable to collapse, and everyone knew that the problem existed in other schools, yet the Prime Minister decided to halve the budget for school maintenance just a couple of years later. Does he agree with his Education Secretary that he should be thanked for doing a “good job”?

Rishi Sunak: I know how concerned parents, children and teachers are, and I want to start by assuring them that the Government are doing everything that we can to fix this quickly, and minimise the disruption to children’s education. We make no apology for acting decisively in the face of new information.
Let me provide the House with an update on where we are. Of the 22,000 schools in England, the vast majority will not be affected. In fact, in two thirds of inspections of suspected schools, RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—is not actually present. To tackle the 1% of schools that have been affected so far, we are assigning each school a dedicated caseworker and providing extra funding to fix the problem. In the majority of cases, children will attend school as normal, and the mitigations take typically just days or weeks to  complete. We will do everything we can to help parents, support teachers and get children back to normal school life as quickly as possible.

Keir Starmer: Wood Green Academy in Sandwell was on Labour’s building list in 2010. The Conservatives scrapped it, and now children there are in a crumbling school. The head of the National Audit Office accuses the Prime Minister of taking a “sticking plaster approach”. The NAO report says he cut £869 million. The person who ran the Department for Education says the Prime Minister is personally responsible. On Monday, he leapt to his own defence, saying it is “utterly wrong” to blame him—so why does literally everyone else say it is his fault?

Rishi Sunak: The professional advice from the technical experts on RAAC has evolved over time. Indeed, it is something that successive Governments have dealt with, dating back to 1994. As new advice has come forward, the Government have rightly, decisively and swiftly acted in the face of that advice.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about school budgets and what I had done, but let me just walk him through the facts of what that spending review actually did, because he brought it up—[Interruption.] No, he brought it up, so presumably he would like to hear the facts. Funding for school maintenance and rebuilding will average £2.6 billion a year over this Parliament as a result of that spending review, representing a 20% increase on the years before. Indeed, far from cutting budgets as he alleges, the amount spent last year was the highest in a decade. That spending review maintained the school rebuilding programme, delivering 500 schools over a decade, a pace completely consistent with what had happened previously. It is worth pointing out that, during the parliamentary debates on that spending review, the Labour party, and he, did not raise the issue of RAAC one single time. Before he jumps on the next political bandwagon, he should get his facts straight.

Keir Starmer: Carmel College in Darlington was on Labour’s building list in 2010. The Conservatives scrapped it, and now children there are in a crumbling school. On the one hand, we have the Prime Minister saying it is nothing to do with him, and on the other hand we have the facts. There is a simple way to clear this up. Why does he not commit to publishing the requests from the Department for Education for the school rebuilding programme and what risks he was warned of before he turned them down?

Rishi Sunak: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has now brought up twice the Labour school rebuilding programme, so let us just look at the facts surrounding it, because we do know the truth about that programme. The NAO, which he has called on, reviewed that programme later on, and what did it find? It found that Labour’s school rebuilding programme excluded 80% of schools. Next, what did it find? It found that it was one third more expensive than it needed to be, needlessly wasting resources that have gone to schools. The worst bit—because now he is talking about the physical condition of schools—is that that programme allocated funds solely on the basis of ideology, with no regard whatsoever to the physical condition of schools. That is why the independent James review described the programme as “time consuming” and “expensive”—just like the Labour party.

Hon. Members:: More!

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We do not want to start off with somebody leaving early, because that is what will happen.

Keir Starmer: Well, Mr Speaker, Conservative Members want more, so let me continue. Ferryhill School in County Durham was on Labour’s building list in 2010. The Government scrapped that, and now children there are in a crumbling school. The truth is that this crisis is the inevitable result of 13 years of cutting corners, botched jobs and sticking plaster politics. It is the sort of thing you expect from cowboy builders: saying that everyone else is wrong and everyone else is to blame, and protesting that they have done an effing good job even as the ceiling falls in. The difference is that in this case, the cowboys are running the country. Is the Prime Minister not ashamed that, after 13 years of Tory Government, children are cowering under steel supports stopping their classroom roof from falling in? [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Seriously, calm down. I understand that this is the first session and people are excited to be back at school, but we expect better behaviour.

Rishi Sunak: This is exactly the kind of political opportunism that we have come to expect from Captain Hindsight here. Before today, he has never once raised this issue with me across the Dispatch Box. It was not even worthy of a single—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The same applies to those on the Labour Benches. We will have a calmer Question Time going forward, because I want to hear the questions and the answers, just like your constituents.

Rishi Sunak: Before today, the right hon. and learned Gentleman never once raised this issue with me in Parliament. It was not even worthy of a single mention in his so-called landmark speech on education this summer. If we had listened to him, our kids would have been off school and locked down for longer—it is as simple as that. He talks about 13 years; well, let us see what has happened. When we came into office, two thirds of schools were rated “good” and “outstanding”; now, it is 90%. We introduced the pupil premium to get more funding to the most disadvantaged pupils. Today, they are 75% more likely to go to university. And, as a result of our reforms, we now have the best readers in the western world. That is what 13 years of education reform gets you, all of which was opposed by the Labour party.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister claims to be a man of detail, but there have been 100 parliamentary questions from the Opposition on this issue, and an Opposition day motion. Let us continue: Holy Family Catholic School in Bradford was on the Labour building list in 2010. The Government scrapped that, and now children there too are in a crumbling school—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr Holden, I have heard enough. This is the last time; make up your mind. Either you go now or you are quiet for the remainder.

Keir Starmer: If you can believe it, Mr Speaker, in April this year, the Education Secretary signed a contract for refurbishment of her offices. It has her personal stamp of approval on it. It cost—I cannot quite believe  this—£34 million. Can the Prime Minister explain to parents whose children are not at school this week why he thinks that a blank cheque for a Tory Minister’s office is better use of taxpayer’s money than stopping schools from collapsing?

Rishi Sunak: What I say to parents is that, on the receipt of new information, we have acted decisively to ensure the safety of children and minimise disruption to education, as we have laid out and communicated extensively. That is the right thing to do. I also gently point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, while the Department for Education started this process 18 months ago in spring of last year, as far as I can tell, Labour-run Wales still does not know which schools are affected.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman brought up funding, so again, let us look back to what happened in that spending review. In that spending review, I increased the Department for Education’s capital budget by 25% to a record £7 billion; it tripled the amount that we spend on children with special educational needs and disabilities; it improved the condition of the overlooked further education estate; and it set the course for per-pupil funding to be the highest ever. Crucially, it also invested £5 billion to help our pupils recover the lost learning from covid. He might remember that, because we wanted pupils learning; he wanted longer lockdowns.

Keir Starmer: I just do not think the Prime Minister gets how, “It’s all fine out there” is at odds with the lived experience of millions of working people across this country.
Let us go on—this is a long list. In 2010, at least six schools in Essex were on Labour’s building list; the Government scrapped them and now children there are in crumbling schools. The Prime Minister will not admit that the reason he cut budgets and ignored the warnings is quite simple: just as he thought his tax rises were for other families to pay, he thinks his school cuts are for other families to endure. Does that not tell us everything we need to know? He is happy to spend millions of taxpayers’ money sprucing up Tory offices, and billions to ensure that there is no VAT on Tory school fees, but he will not lift a finger when it comes to protecting other people’s schools, other people’s safety and other people’s children.

Rishi Sunak: I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman comes here with prepared scripts, but he has not listened to a single fact, over six questions, about the record amounts of funding going into schools, or the incredible reforms to education impacting the most disadvantaged children in our society—a record that we are rightly proud of. Yes, we can name the schools: that is because we are reacting to information and publishing it so that we know where the issues are—something that we are still waiting for from the Welsh Government.
Of course the right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to score political points from something that we are dealing with in the right and responsible way, but I note that he has not mentioned a single other thing that has happened since we last met at the Dispatch Box. He talked about hard-working families across Britain, but what has happened to energy bills? Down.  What has happened to inflation? Down. What has happened to small boat crossings? Down. And what has happened to economic growth? It has gone up. The right hon. and learned Gentleman tried time and again to talk down the British economy, but thankfully, people were not listening. His entire economic narrative has been demolished, and the Conservatives are getting on delivering for Britain. [Hon. Members: “More!”]

Lindsay Hoyle: There will be more. I call Nicola Richards.

Nicola Richards: Against a backdrop of improving economic news, inflation falling, energy bills coming down and growth up, people in the west midlands are disappointed to see that Labour-run Birmingham City Council has gone bankrupt. As a Sandwell resident and a West Bromwich MP, I am no stranger to Labour incompetence. Does the Prime Minister agree that Labour have demonstrated yet again that they always run out of other people’s money?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is exactly right. We started by hearing how Labour in London are charging hard-working people with ULEZ, and now we are hearing about how Labour in Birmingham are failing hard-working people, losing control of taxpayers’ money and driving their finances into the ground. They have bankrupted Birmingham; we cannot let them bankrupt Britain.

Lindsay Hoyle: We come to the SNP leader.

Stephen Flynn: The public need no reminding that today marks a year since the Prime Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), took office. Upon her speedy departure, they will have thought that things were going to get better, but unemployment figures are higher, food prices are higher, mortgage rates are higher, and economic growth is stagnant. When is the Prime Minister going to get off his backside and do something about it?

Rishi Sunak: What the hon. Gentleman failed to point out is the amount of times I have sat across the Dispatch Box from him and his colleagues and heard how somehow, we were a laggard when it came to growth. He did not take the opportunity to correct the record now that figures have been published, which demonstrate that in fact, we had the fastest recovery of any European economy after covid.

Stephen Flynn: Mr Speaker, you would be forgiven for thinking that the Prime Minister thinks everything is all right, but let us look at his proposals for a winter cost of living package. On energy bills, his plan is to do nothing; on mortgage bills, his plan is to do nothing; and on food bills, his plan is to do nothing. When the Secretary of State for Education said earlier this week that everyone was doing nothing, she was referring to the Prime Minister, wasn’t she?

Rishi Sunak: I think the hon. Gentleman is a little out of practice, because we have paid around half a typical family’s energy bills over the past year. That is support worth £1,500, benefiting families in Scotland.   On mortgages, the Chancellor’s mortgage charter covers 90% of the mortgage market, and ensures that a typical mortgage holder can save hundreds of pounds a month on mortgage refinancing. On energy, thanks to the actions of this Government, we are supporting the hundreds of thousands of jobs in the Scottish oil and gas industry, securing this country’s energy supply, which he opposes. I will always do what is right for the people of Scotland, and it is time the SNP did the same.

Greg Smith: I was delighted when the Prime Minister said last year that, on his watch, we would “not lose swathes” of farmland to solar applications, instead rightly arguing for solar to be installed on rooftops, yet my constituency sees a constant flow of planning applications for solar farms and battery storage plants on food-producing land. Can I ask my right hon. Friend: when will his pledge become a reality?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Solar is one of the cheapest forms of electricity generation, so it is right that we try and see more of it across the country, but we do need to protect our most valuable agricultural land so that it can produce food for the nation and increase our food security. That is why, thanks to our changes, the planning system now sets this out explicitly with a clear preference for brownfield sites. Of course, we want to do more to encourage barn-top solar, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be updating the House with further information on that policy in due course.

Andrew Bridgen: Last week, the Prime Minister stated that he was “proud” of his furlough scheme. I wonder if he is equally proud of the £400 billion he put on the national debt and the inflation it has caused. Is he proud of the jobs lost, businesses closed and lives crushed due to the lockdowns? Is he proud of the increased NHS waiting lists, premature deaths and the 1 million young people now needing mental health support? Finally, is he proud of the excess deaths affecting every one of our constituencies that nobody wants to talk about, and will he give  an undertaking to the British public—a solemn under-taking—that they will never be inflicted upon them again?

Rishi Sunak: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a formal inquiry regarding covid, which will examine all the decisions that were made, including lockdown, and the impacts of them. But with regard to the furlough scheme, I am proud that, at a time of extreme anxiety in the country, facing an unprecedented situation, this Government put their arms around the British public to ensure that we protected 10 million jobs. As the report from the Office for National Statistics showed last week, those actions, combined with all the other things we did to support the economy, ensured that we had the fastest recovery through the pandemic of any European nation.

Neil Hudson: As we are a nation of animal lovers, the Conservative Government’s record on animal welfare is a source of great pride, but, sadly, too many abuses remain—from pet theft, the smuggling of puppies and heavily pregnant  dogs and dogs with their ears horrifically cropped to the illegal export of horses to Europe for slaughter. These issues are personal to me as a veterinary surgeon and to my constituents, especially animal theft and livestock worrying. Can the Prime Minister reassure the House that animal welfare is a key Government priority, and that he will bring forward the necessary legislation to tackle these issues as soon as possible?

Rishi Sunak: May I thank my hon. Friend for both raising this issue and also his work and expertise in the area? I am proud that, thanks to the actions that previous Governments have taken on things like cat microchipping, the ivory ban and raising the maximum sentence for animal cruelty to five years, we are now the highest ranked G7 nation on World Animal Protection’s animal protection index, but we are determined to go even further and deliver on our manifesto commitments individually during the remainder of this Parliament.

Rachel Hopkins: The Prime Minister has said he will lead a Government of honesty, accountability and integrity, so can he explain how he was found to have breached the code of conduct, this time for failing to declare his wife’s shares in a childcare agency that received a monetary boost from measures in his Budget?

Rishi Sunak: If the hon. Lady reads the full transcript and the full findings, she will see a detailed explanation of what happened, which the commissioner described as a “minor and inadvertent” breach, given that at the time I was not aware of the policy that was being discussed with me, and corrected it later on and could have corrected it with slightly different language. She will also know that I am not the only person across these Dispatch Boxes that has had the same thing happen to them.

John Penrose: May I interest the Prime Minister in proposals from the commission for carbon competitiveness, which I chair, that would deliver net zero cheaply and without deindustrialising our economy? It would help British manufacturers facing imports from countries with lower energy costs, make our exports more competitive everywhere, and cut fuel duty at home. We have strong backing from Britain’s heavy industries, and cross-party support from the excellent hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), whose name is also on the Order Paper. Would the Prime Minister consider adding his name to our list of supporters as well?

Rishi Sunak: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and the commission for carbon competitiveness for the report that he has worked on and highlighted, and the Government are absolutely committed to putting in place the necessary policies for UK industry to decarbonise successfully. As he will be aware, the Government recently consulted on addressing carbon leakage in particular, with a range of potential options. We are in the process of considering those responses, and will issue a formal response in due course.

Fleur Anderson: Every year, billions of wet wipes go out into our rivers and oceans, and clog up our sewers. I have been campaigning for years to ban plastic in wet wipes. The Government have  finally promised to ban plastic in wet wipes, but that was five months ago and there has been nothing since then. Will the Prime Minister today finally give a date for when that ban will come into force and make a difference to our environment, or is this another broken promise from his zombie Government?

Rishi Sunak: In the comprehensive “Plan for Water” that was published by the Environment Secretary in April, we confirmed our intention to ban wet wipes containing plastic, subject, as is legally proper, to a public consultation. That consultation will be launched in the coming months, in autumn this year, and I know Ministers will keep the House updated on progress.

Craig Mackinlay: I would like to offer some assistance on the small boats issue. Has my right hon. Friend considered the incongruity of the fact that a UK dinghy manufacturer trying to sell into the EU market would have to apply the CE marking, customs codes and could be stopped and checked, and a similar situation applies, perversely, with a simple thing like Great Britain to Northern Ireland trade? But none of that applies, seemingly, when huge, supersize, dangerous cut-and-shut dinghies are taken from Turkey, across the EU border into Bulgaria and Greece. Is my right hon. Friend as confused as I am by the EU’s double standards on that matter?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we must do all we can to stop the boats and tackle illegal migration. We know that the export of small boats across parts of the European continent is a vital element of the smuggling gangs’ tactics. That is why, specifically, we are stepping up joint operations with Turkey—I raised this with the President when we spoke—so that we can tackle organised immigration crime, and specifically disrupt the supply chain of boat parts that are used for these dangerous crossings. I will continue to keep him updated on our progress.

Luke Pollard: Two years ago in Plymouth, we lost five people in the worst mass shooting the country has seen for a decade. The Government have finally consulted on firearms reform, but after pressure from shooting groups, even those sensible measures look like they could be watered down. Will the Prime Minister bow down to lobbyists from the shooting industry, or will he stand with the grieving families, and with those in Plymouth who want to see no tragedy like this ever happen again, with stronger gun laws?

Rishi Sunak: I know how important this issue is to the hon. Gentleman, following the horrific shooting in his constituency, and my thoughts are with the family of all those who were killed. He will know that firearms are subject to stringent controls, and rightly so, but those controls are kept under constant review. For example, we have taken action to improve information sharing between GPs and the police, to ensure that people are not given access to firearms without their medical conditions being checked. There is statutory guidance that the chief officers of police have been improving, so that how people apply for firearms is assessed properly, including checks on social media. On   the matter that the hon. Gentleman specifically raises, the Home Office is in the process of considering responses to that consultation, and will respond in due course.

Stephen Metcalfe: Later today, I am bringing forward a ten-minute rule Bill, to include the provision of automated external defibrillators in all new housing developments of 10 dwellings or more. Will my right hon. Friend support that provision, and ask his relevant Cabinet colleagues to engage with me to ensure that these life-saving pieces of equipment can become commonplace where they can have the most impact, close to people’s homes?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of these lifesaving devices. That is why the national planning policy framework already expects planning policies and decisions to promote public safety, but it is also why recently the Government launched a million-pound fund that will place around 1,000 new defibrillators in communities across England to help improve equality of access to these lifesaving devices.

Andy McDonald: In 2019, the Outwood Academy Riverside free school application in Middlesbrough was approved, with its first year 7 intake arriving the following year. There have been further intakes every year since, but there is still no new building. I have had no response to my request for a meeting with the Secretary of State, but that original intake are destined to spend their entire secondary education in various temporary adapted premises. With pupils being shunted around old buildings, talk of levelling up and addressing the GCSE attainment gap rings hollow. Will the Prime Minister and his Education Secretary get off their derrières and sort this out?

Rishi Sunak: I am happy to ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets an answer to his specific question on that school, but more generally I am proud of  what the Government are doing in Teesside and Tees Valley to support education, not only with the recent announcement of new sixth forms, but also it is an education investment area receiving extra funding and resources. That is why we have seen standards in reading and maths increase considerably, and we are determined to keep going.

Priti Patel: The Prime Minister is aware of how the RAAC issue has affected schools in Essex. We have a high number of schools that have been impacted. He has rightly said today that the Government are doing everything they can to get children back to school. I know there is a debate on this later today, but will he commit to fully funding both the capital and revenue costs associated with getting children back into school?
I hope he will commit to meeting the leader of Essex County Council, because it is pioneering some great reforms right now, where it is looking to support maintained schools as well as academy trusts. I think the Government could get some good insights into how we can get children back to school fast and look at the funding model.

Rishi Sunak: First, I thank my right hon. Friend for her constructive engagement with the Department. I pay tribute to her school leaders and local authority for everything they are doing. I am happy to give her the reassurance, as the Chancellor has already said, that new funding will be provided to schools to deal with this issue. To ensure that we can get through this as quickly as possible for my right hon. Friend’s constituents and parents—and, indeed, everyone else’s—the Department for Education is in the process of increasing the number of dedicated caseworkers from 50 to 80. We have 35 project directors regionally on the ground to support, and we have more than doubled the number of survey firms, so that we can rapidly over the next few weeks fully assess all the relevant schools and have a mitigation plan in place.

Stephen Kinnock: Steel- workers in my constituency have watched in frustration as other Governments have pumped investment into decarbonisation while successive Tory Governments have sat on their hands. When will the Prime Minister finally conclude the talks with Tata Steel? Can he guarantee that level of investment will match what other European Governments are doing on decarbonisation? And will he guarantee that the conclusion will be based on serious engagement, comprehensively with the steel unions?

Rishi Sunak: Steel is absolutely vital to the UK. This matter is of course of interest to the hon. Gentleman, but I have also discussed it extensively with my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft), and that is because the industry supports local jobs and economic growth. Conversations with specific companies, such as Tata, are ongoing, but they are understandably commercially sensitive. We share the ambition of securing a decarbonised, sustainable and competitive future for the industry in this country. In the meantime, we are supporting the sector with our energy-intensive industries exemption, which provides discounted energy bills. We also have the industrial energy transformation fund, which supports steel companies with their energy bills and the transition through capital to a greener future.

Mark Fletcher: Two weeks ago the Government announced that the Bolsover School’s bid for a sixth form in my constituency has been successful. Across the country, some 52% of school leavers at 16 years old go on to a sixth form, but in Bolsover it  is 23%, in Clowne it is 22%, and in Shirebrook it  is 7%. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking the Redhill Academy Trust, Matthew Hall, the headteacher of Bolsover School, and all those who have helped to bring a sixth form to Bolsover?

Rishi Sunak: I congratulate Redhill and everyone involved with the successful bid for the new sixth form in Bolsover. I am delighted that the bid was successful. I know that my hon. Friend shares my desire to ensure a world-class education for every single one of our young people across the country, because that is the best way to provide them with the opportunity for a better life. The new programme of sixth forms will deliver that in his constituency and many others across the nation.

Ian Mearns: The north- east has been underfunded in terms of transport investment for decades. HS2, which was meant to be an economic development and connectivity lifeline, is now not coming anywhere near, the A1 Northumberland dualling decision has been delayed yet again, and our regional rail services are still running on outdated infrastructure and rolling stock.
With all that in mind, will the Prime Minister commit the funding to reopen the Leamside line from Gateshead to County Durham to take pressure off the east coast main line and aid economic wellbeing and the movement of passengers and freight services in the north-east of England? Or is levelling-up just rhetoric?

Rishi Sunak: Obviously, it would not be right for me to comment on specific projects, but to give the hon. Gentleman a sense of our commitment, what I can tell him is that in real terms since 2010 we have spent over a third more in central capital investment in northern transport every single year compared with Labour’s last six years in government. That is what we are doing for northern transportation. Specifically, when it comes to reopening and restoring railway lines, where was the first one that we did? From Ashington to Blyth.

William Wragg: I have a cheerful question that I know my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will find impossible to resist. He will be aware of the work that I have been doing with No. 10’s UK Ambassador for mental health, Dr Alex George, to establish early intervention mental health hubs across the country. We have got the pilot, which seems to be lost somewhere between the Treasury and the Department of Health—I know he will sort that problem out—but will he meet Dr Alex George and me to discuss it further? These hubs will make a massive difference in constituencies across the country. We all know the problems with child and adolescent mental health services and the perverse situation where children and young people have to get progressively worse before they get the treatment they need. I know that the Prime Minister will be very supportive of this one, Mr Speaker.

Rishi Sunak: I know that my hon. Friend is rightly a passionate advocate for improving mental health support for young people, which is something I know we are doing, and I am proud of our record, particularly in increasing the number of mental health support teams who work with schools and expanding community services. I know that the Department of Health and Social Care is looking at the role that early support hubs might play in this plan, but I am happy to meet my hon. Friend personally to discuss how we can push this through.

Mary Glindon: We have heard far too much lately about ministerial posteriors and little about prosperity for the country. Even in these dying days of a lame-duck Government, will the Prime Minister stop prevaricating and subscribe to the Horizon programme for the sake of vital British science, innovation and cancer research?

Rishi Sunak: This Government are investing record sums in British science and research and development, because we believe that is critical to a brighter economic future and spreading opportunity.  Our priority and preference is to associate to Horizon, but we want to make sure that that is on terms that are right both for the British taxpayer and for British science and research. I can commit to the hon. Lady that we have been extensively involved in discussions. I hope to be able to conclude those successfully and, when we do, I hope she will be the first to stand up and congratulate the Government.

Caroline Dinenage: September is Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, but it also marks two years since the death of my constituent Sophie Fairall. She was only 10 years old. Every day in the UK, 10 young people will be diagnosed with cancer, and two of those will not survive. Those who do face a lifetime of side effects from treatments that are just not designed for small bodies. When will the Prime Minister publish a childhood cancer action plan?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I extend my sympathies to her constituent’s family, as she raised. She is right to continue campaigning in this important area. I hope she will understand that I cannot pre-empt the specific contents of the strategy, but I can tell her that it will draw on previous work, including submissions from childhood cancer charities and stakeholders to our recent calls for evidence. Of course, we want to hear from them to highlight and get a sense of the issues that she specifically raised, but I will ensure that we write to her to give her a sense of the timing.

Chris Law: Every year the SNP Scottish Government mitigate against the cruellest of Westminster policies by spending £84 million on supporting hard-working families against the brutal bedroom tax and over £6.2 million on covering the two-child benefit cap. Astonishingly, we have learned over the summer that the Leader of the Opposition is an enthusiastic supporter of these Tory cruel welfare policies, with U-turn after U-turn from the Labour party. Given that the Tories and Labour are two cheeks of the same arse—[ “Oh!]—offering no change, no vision and no hope, does the Prime Minister agree that the only way Scottish voters can rid themselves—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am not going to have us both stand up; one of us is going to give way, and it will not be me. Let us think about language. Let us be more temperate and make sure that the pride of this Parliament shines through—that certainly will not be by using such language.

Chris Law: I am happy to change the offending word to “bottom”. Given that the Tories and Labour are two cheeks of the same bottom, offering no change, no vision and no hope, does the Prime Minister agree that the only way for Scottish voters to rid themselves of these heinous policies is to vote for the SNP to leave Westminster forever?

Rishi Sunak: Obviously not. I think the thrust of that question was directed at the Leader of the Opposition rather than me, and I would not want to get in the middle of that. What I can say is that we want to ensure a welfare system that is compassionate and looks after the most vulnerable in our society, while supporting   into work those who can do so, because that is also fair for everyone else and British taxpayers. I believe that is a system that we are achieving. Right now, we are  providing people in Scotland with thousands of pounds of support to help with energy bills and everything else, and we will continue to do so.

Points of Order

Lucy Powell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister said that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition had never raised the issue of school building safety before, and he specifically mentioned his education speech earlier this summer. That is categorically untrue. I wondered if the Prime Minister wanted to correct the record. My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned it as part of that speech, in fact. It has also been raised by the Opposition more than 180 times in this House, and was the subject of an Opposition day debate, in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, in May. I am sure that the Prime Minister would not want to give the House the wrong impression.

Lindsay Hoyle: The hon. Lady has raised the point of order quite correctly, and has corrected the record herself. I am sure that the Prime Minister will be notified of the point she has raised. We will leave it for now and see what happens.

David Linden: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your guidance on how hon. Members may hold energy companies to account for their shortcomings with their business customers? I have been in contact with EDF Energy for a number of months over its multiple failures that have severely impacted The Circle, a wonderful community interest company in Easterhouse. EDF’s multiple failures to correct the mistakes are incredibly worrying. I seek your guidance on how a Member of this House might be able to use its procedures to hold energy companies to account.

Lindsay Hoyle: It is disappointing to hear about EDF and the way that it is not responding. As an experienced Member, I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that the Table Office can advise him on the various ways that he can pursue EDF on this matter.

Alexander Stafford: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Prime Minister’s questions, the Leader of the Opposition accused the Prime Minister of spending taxpayers’ money to refurbish “Tory offices”. I believe the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) was referring to the Department for Education, a Whitehall, Government, non-partisan civil service office. Will you, Mr Speaker, ask the Leader of the Opposition to come back to correct the record?

Lindsay Hoyle: I do not think I need to be told by the hon. Gentleman what I have to do. He has certainly put it on the record, and it will have been heard by the Opposition. You were right to raise a point of order, Mr Stafford, but do not start instructing me on what I need to do. We will leave that there at this stage.

Automated External Defibrillators (Housing Developments)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Stephen Metcalfe: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the provision of automated external defibrillators in all new housing developments of ten dwellings or more; to require developers to provide funding for the maintenance of such defibrillators for a period of ten years after installation; and for connected purposes.
My Bill aims to increase the number of automated external defibrillators by ensuring that, in future, they are an essential feature of every new housing development. That is a vital step in our endeavour to increase cardiac arrest survival rates. Crucially, my Bill also requires funding for the continued maintenance of defibrillators. First, I will outline the scope of my Bill and its links to important debates that the Commons has had on defibrillators. Secondly, I will highlight the scientific evidence from around the world that overwhelmingly supports the introduction of my Bill, and I will present the important argument for a maintenance provision in the Bill.
I am grateful to Dave Bowling, a community first responder in my constituency, for providing the inspiration for the Bill, which, as this speech will demonstrate, has the potential to save many lives. The powerful benefits of defibrillators have already been highlighted in Parliament. My Bill follows the 2018 Defibrillators (Availability) Bill, brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), and the 2023 Automated External Defibrillators (Public Access) Bill brought forward by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Additionally, the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) recently led an important debate on public access to defibrillators, and a sponsor of my Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), has been advocating for greater uptake of AEDs through his leadership of the all-party parliamentary group on defibrillators. I also note with appreciation that the Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), was the first MP to call for all MPs to complete defibrillator training. Such discussions and endorsements in Parliament are of great value in increasing public awareness of defibrillators.
I acknowledge the very positive steps that have been taken to provide defibrillators in every school and on our high streets, and the funding that the Prime Minister mentioned earlier, but the Bill targets an area that is yet to be addressed: private residential homes. It is crucial to note that in the UK, most out-of-hospital cardiac arrests—70%, according to the Resuscitation Council UK—occur in the home. However, when I looked at my constituency and others on the “Defib finder” website, it was apparent that defibrillators are predominantly installed in non-residential areas. That is a problem. In Sweden, researchers have found that a person is three times more likely to survive a cardiac arrest in public than at home. That statistic could be mirrored in the UK, which is why I am calling for a legal requirement to ensure that all new housing developments have a defibrillator—an essential piece of life-saving equipment.
When cardiac arrests happen, it is crucial that a defibrillator be nearby. According to a study by Sarkisian et al., the survival rate for cardiac arrests decreases by 10% for every additional 100 metres between the patient and the defib. It is therefore concerning that, according to a recent study by Burgoine et al.—many Members will have read about it in the papers last week—the median distance of a publicly accessible defibrillator from any given postcode in Great Britain is 726 metres.
When someone has a cardiac arrest, their heart stops, and it is a race against time to ensure that oxygen continues to travel to their brain. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation—chest compressions with rescue breaths—is essential for maintaining the flow of blood and oxygen during this time. However, the use of a defibrillator is the only method that can seriously improve survival rates, by shocking the heart and causing it to resume its normal rhythm. That restores the flow of blood and oxygen to the brain. If a defibrillator is used before an ambulance arrives, survival rates from cardiac arrest increase from less than 10% to more than 70%.
Given that there are 60,000 cardiac arrests in the UK every year, it is crystal clear that my Bill is necessary to increase the number of defibrillators in private residential areas, and I hope that this will not be a controversial issue for the House. Some may suggest that the Bill will impose an additional financial burden on housing developers, but the cost of a defibrillator is small in relation to the entire budget of a housing project: just over £1,000. The Bill will also empower residents to learn about defibrillators, and to know where they are and how to use them. Everyone should know what a defibrillator is and, hopefully, where to find one.
The second part of my Bill requires developers to provide funding for these new defibrillators for 10 years after their installation. If defibrillators are to work and   to save lives, they must be maintained. So what maintenance is required? First, there must be an electricity supply to maintain the temperature of the defibrillator; this protects the battery life of the device. Secondly, batteries need to be replaced after four to six years. Replacement batteries typically cost just £300. Thirdly, electrode pads need to be replaced after two years. Five replacement pads cost only £360. As for who would carry out the maintenance, I believe that a number of organisations would be well placed to visit each defibrillator in an area once every two years for that purpose—for example, the fire service; the first responder network, including the local ambulance service; or even, perhaps, the local authority. Funding for the maintenance could well be achieved through a section 106 agreement between housing developers and local authorities.
My Bill has two important aspects: the provision of a defibrillator in every new housing development consisting of more than 10 dwellings, and the provision of 10 years’ maintenance funding, all for an additional cost of about £2,500, or £250 per property. That is a small price to pay for immediate access to a lifesaving defibrillator. The scientific evidence overwhelmingly emphasises the impact that the Bill could have, and I hope that the House recognises that and decides to take action to improve cardiac arrest survival rates.
Let me end with Dave Bowling’s call to action: “defibrillation for the nation”.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Stephen Metcalfe, Anna Firth, Mr Mark Francois, Jackie Doyle-Price, Carol Monaghan, Jonathan Gullis, Sir Chris Bryant and Giles Watling present the Bill.
Stephen Metcalfe accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 360).

Northern Ireland Troubles  (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill

Consideration of Lords message

Clause 18 - Immunity from prosecution

Chris Heaton-Harris: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 44D, 44E, 44F, 44G, 44H and 44J.
Let me begin by reminding the House that the Government have sought to make a realistic assessment of what we can best deliver for families more than a quarter of a century after the 1998 Belfast/Good Friday agreement, nearly 30 years since the first ceasefires, and well over 50 years since the troubles began. The backdrop is that current mechanisms for addressing legacy matters work for only a very small number of people, rather than the overwhelming majority, and established criminal justice processes are increasingly unlikely to deliver outcomes that people desire, especially in respect of prosecutions.
We have only one issue left to debate today: conditional immunity. The purpose of this legislation is to give people more information in a shorter timeframe than is possible with the current mechanisms. We do that by creating an effective information recovery process that relies on a conditional immunity model. I attended a decent chunk of the debate in the House of Lords yesterday, and although I am sympathetic to the intent behind Lords amendment 44E, which is to give family members a role in deciding whether immunity should or should not be granted, immunity risks undermining the effectiveness of these provisions and the principal aim of information recovery. For example, the “public interest” consideration element in condition D would lead to uncertainty about the circumstances in which immunity will be granted, undermining the clear and transparent approach that we have developed over time. If we are to ensure that the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery can obtain as much information for families as possible, we need to ensure that the right incentives are in place for individuals to come forward to provide that information.

Jim Shannon: I appreciate that the Secretary of State—whom, by the way, I greatly respect—has come here to try to deliver the Bill as it is, but may I make this point to him? A great many people out there have lost loved ones over the years—we all know who they are—and on every occasion, they seek justice. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), even if there is only a candle of light of a possibility that someday, those who had murdered someone’s loved one would be held accountable for it, that is what we need. Let me say, with respect, that today the Government are extinguishing that light for all those who have lost loved ones. There are many people in the Chamber today, and in the Public Gallery, who have lost loved ones. On behalf of all those families, I implore the Secretary of State and the Government to think very carefully about the direction  that they are taking, because the families’ right to justice is being extinguished, and that cannot bode well for the future.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, for the way he has raised it, and indeed for the numerous conversations we have had on these matters outside this place and within it. He knows the answer that I am going to give him. I will never, and can never, put myself in the shoes of the people who have lost someone. I just cannot. However, I can see a process that has worked for only a very few people, considering the quantum of people who were affected by the troubles and who lost people. Indeed, the chances of getting justice for them are dwindling all the time.
The Government have come to the conclusion that this is the right way forward because we hope that we can, in good time, at least get some information recovered for those families that ask for it, and also through other elements of the Bill that are not the subject of this package of amendments. If someone misleads the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, there are criminal processes involving perjury and a whole host of criminal investigations that can take place. A whole host of things have changed that I hope will allow lots of information to be recovered in quick time for families.

Colum Eastwood: The Secretary of State says he cannot put himself in the shoes of the victims, but he could listen to them. Can he tell us how many or what percentage of the victims he has met have shown support for this piece of legislation?

Chris Heaton-Harris: Very few have shown support for this legislation, but I have met many, as has my Lords Minister, Lord Caine. In fact, part of the process of changing the Bill has come from those conversations. I understand that lots of families do not want this Bill, but the question then is: if not this Bill, then what? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) says “Stormont House”, but he knows that Stormont House did not have cross-party agreement at the time and that the Ulster Unionist party did not agree to it—

Claire Hanna: rose—

Chris Heaton-Harris: I happily give way. Please correct me.

Claire Hanna: Would the Minister acknowledge that it did have cross-party support—the Ulster Unionists deferred on one small matter—and that it was recommitted to by his Government and the Irish Government as recently as January 2020?

Chris Heaton-Harris: And it did not move forward because of the different political issues that came about.

Colum Eastwood: The Minister made this very point at an event that I was at at the weekend, but it was Chatham House rules so I am not allowed to talk about it. He puts forward the argument that the parties just could not agree, but I was involved in many of those discussions and I can tell him that the British Government dragged their feet month after month around the issue of onward disclosure. That is what happened, and it is important to put that on the record. The vast majority  of political parties and victims’ groups in Northern Ireland supported Stormont House but the British Government just did not want to do it. That is why it did not get delivered.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I am afraid I do not quite believe that that is the case. However, the British Government have committed to full disclosure to the ICRIR, which allows for a huge amount of information to be put forward in those circumstances and the possibility of ensuring that the commissioner can obtain as much information as possible from families.

Sammy Wilson: The Minister said that if families were to have a say on whether immunity should be granted, it would undermine the whole thrust of the Bill, but the point of the Bill is to ensure that people and families who have been hurt, traumatised and damaged by what happened as a result of terrorist activity in Northern Ireland over 30 years have their say. Surely the best way of giving them justice, after they have heard what the circumstances of the case were, what the attitude of the individual is and what can be disclosed, is to at least let them have the final say on whether they feel that the individual concerned should be granted immunity.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point. The many amendments to this Bill throughout the last year have included measures on how families should be engaged with and how their views should be heard throughout the process. To ensure that the commission can obtain as much information for families as possible, we need to ensure that the right incentives are in place for individuals to come forward and provide that information. The possibility that eligible individuals who co-operate fully with the commission could then be prevented from obtaining immunity from prosecution is highly likely to act as a significant disincentive for individuals to disclose that information.

Simon Hoare: This was never going to be an easy issue, or an easy Bill. If it was easy, it would have been done many years ago. What the Government are proposing may be right, or it may be part right and part wrong. I certainly think that giving those survivors and their families a right to veto would be the wrong step to take, so the Government are right on that. However, I think the House will find comfort in the fact that the Secretary of State will keep the progress of the enactment under review, and if there is abuse or things that are wrong, we can revisit it, tidy it up and make it work better. This cannot be seen as a closed chapter, job done. Rather, it is the start of a new process—quite experimental in some ways—of learning from other people’s experiences. If we have that comfort that this is amendable and reviewable, it might help to assuage some, if not all, the concerns.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for his point. He will know that other amendments I have tabled have tried to make this body as independent as it can possibly be. I am sure he will have taken great heart from the appointment of the chief commissioner designate, Sir Declan Morgan, and from the comments he has been making about how he  intends to go about his business. He is engaging widely, even at this point, and will do so even further when the Bill gets Royal Assent and becomes an Act. Just in the practice of Sir Declan in putting the flesh on the framework that we are building here for the commission, I think my hon. Friend will see that there are lots of opportunities for it to do exactly what he wishes it to do.

Jonathan Gullis: This is understandably an emotional and difficult topic, and it is one that means a lot to me, having served as a Parliamentary Private Secretary to the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir Brandon Lewis), and also having loved ones who lived through the troubles on either side of the border. The discussions were difficult and I want to give my support to the Secretary of State on this. If there is a threat of prosecution down the line, it will be the families of British soldiers and the families particularly in Unionist communities who will not get the answers they rightly deserve. It will disincentivise people from coming forward and presenting evidence.
Even though justice might not be served in a court, there will at least be answers to the questions that family members have been asking for a long time. It will offer some small hope of reconciliation for those families if they can finally get the truth about what happened and who was involved, in order to allow Northern Ireland to heal and move on. I have engaged regularly with members of the Northern Irish community, and they want to talk about education and about creating more high-skilled, high-wage jobs. They are desperate to see prosperity for their great country, and those are the things that that nation wants to move on to look forward to, rather than continuously looking backwards.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank my hon. Friend for his point and for his committed work in my Department. I was not there at the time, but I know of it. I understand the point that he makes. Over the past year, we have endeavoured through amendments to make the Bill very much focused on all victims of the troubles, so that all victims can, if they choose to do so, contact the commission and start a process that will hopefully get them some information in relatively quick time.

Sammy Wilson: We have recently had an example of a Roman Catholic priest who was involved in IRA activities. When talking about his role, he said that his only regret was that his efforts were not more effective in killing people. If that kind of evidence is elicited—if people come forward and show no remorse and no regret, and offer no comfort to victims—does the Secretary of State really think victims will feel any better? Would not giving them the opportunity to say, “In the light of that man’s attitude, I do not believe he should be granted immunity,” be a better way of ensuring that justice is at least seen to be done for those people?

Chris Heaton-Harris: Unbelievably evil things were done in the course of the troubles. Unbelievably hideous acts were committed, and none of us can change that. As I said at the beginning of my contribution, it has not been possible to give justice to a huge number of those families even today, even after the passage of all that time and even after numerous investigations in some cases. This Bill tries to get some information to families  who contact the commission to request it, so they can better understand the situation. It will not change anything that happened in the past—it simply cannot.

Colum Eastwood: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way again. The premise of his argument and some of the arguments we have heard from Members on those Benches, which are sometimes extremely condescending to victims who have been going through this for many decades, is that people will come forward with the truth if we grant immunity. Well, there is one glaring example that proves that is totally wrong. During the Bloody Sunday inquiry, the soldiers were granted immunity within the context of the inquiry. One after another, they lied through their teeth, and that has been proven by an international public inquiry. With the disappeared, again, IRA people were provided immunity within the context of the organisation that was looking to find those bodies, and we still have bodies out there that have not been found because those people did not come forward and tell the truth even when they were granted immunity.
The lie that is being used to sell this Bill is just that: a lie. It is patently untrue and it will not do anything to give people the truth and justice they desire.

Chris Heaton-Harris: The hon. Gentleman characterises it completely incorrectly. There are no guarantees that the Bill will bring information forward but, as I tried to outline, very little new information has come to light that has led to new cases. Very few people have been able to receive justice. He mentions the point that, in the past, some people might have misled a judge-led inquiry. Well, that is perjury, and perjury is now part of this Bill. The Bill has changed a huge amount over the past year, and it is worthy of support.

Stephen Farry: This may well be our last chance to discuss the Bill in this Chamber. May I ask the Secretary of State to reflect on the fact that virtually every independent human rights expert including, most notably, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which has statutory functions, does not believe that the Bill is human rights compliant? Even Sir Declan Morgan, who has been appointed to head up the ICRIR, could not give a categorical answer to that question in a recent newspaper interview. Indeed, it is anticipated that a whole series of cases will need to be brought forward to clear up the issues around human rights compliance.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I understand that point and, again, that is the purpose of all the amendments we have made. The hon. Gentleman will know that I was not comfortable with the Bill that I inherited because, as there would be a gap in investigations, I did not believe it could be article 2 compliant. Amendments have been introduced that completely change that and I believe that the Bill is now compliant, but that will undoubtedly be tested. Only when it is tested and the results come forward can anybody actually say that the Bill is article 2 compliant, as Government lawyers truly believe it is.

Claire Hanna: The Secretary of State was unhappy with the Bill he inherited, which is the context of the amendments and changes that have been made to this Bill. Has he consulted with the chief commissioner-designate  on the Lords amendments he is rejecting today? If the chief commissioner-designate was consulted, did he agree to reject the amendments?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I determined not to speak to the chief commissioner-designate, so that I could maintain his independence when the Bill is enacted.

Jim Shannon: In several of the Secretary of State’s answers to questions from Opposition Members, he has said, “If there is extra evidence”. Has he or the British Government had the opportunity to speak to the Irish Republic Government about their role? I believe the Irish Republic Government, through the Garda Síochána, have an evidence base on the murders that were carried out by the IRA along the border. I am very conscious of Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Bob Buchanan in 1989, Lexie Cummings in 1982 and Ian Sproule in 1991. The people who did that escaped across the border, and the Garda Síochána has indicated—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am very conscious of time. You are down to speak, and you have made your speech already. Other people need to get in. This is a very important issue, and I want to make sure that people can make their speeches.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Forgive me, Mr Speaker; I was trying to take as many interventions as possible.

Lindsay Hoyle: I know. We all know that Mr Shannon is very good, but it is the amount of time. Interventions have to be short and punchy, not speeches. He is going to make a speech later.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I can assure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that I have been speaking to the Irish Government about elements of what he mentioned.
The commission will grant immunity from prosecution only if an individual provides an account that is true to the best of their knowledge and belief. We have developed a robust test for immunity, in which their account must be tested against any information that the commission holds. If an individual does not provide a truthful account of their actions that could be passed to families, or if they do not participate in the immunity process at all, immunity will not be granted and they would remain liable to prosecution should evidence exist. Where a prosecution takes place, and should a conviction be secured, an individual will not be eligible for the early release scheme under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. Again, that is a result of amendments made in this House.
Similarly, although I acknowledge the sentiment  behind introducing licence conditions under Lords amendment 44E, I respectfully suggest that the Government have sought to address these issues through amendments that were adopted on Report in the other place. These amendments send a clear message that, once immunity is granted, individuals who are convicted of offences that could impede reconciliation will lose that immunity. In the Government’s view, this approach strikes the right balance between providing sufficient certainty  as to the effect of a grant of immunity necessary to  encourage participation and ensuring that there are appropriate consequences for those whose behaviour after being granted immunity is not compatible with the fundamental aims of the Bill.
The alternative proposed by the Opposition would not support an effective information recovery process, and I therefore ask that the House joins me in disagreeing to amendments 44D, 44E, 44F, 44G, 44H and 44J.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Hilary Benn: May I take this opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) to the Front-Bench team, and to express my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for all the service she gave during her time as part of the shadow Northern Ireland team?
As the House will be aware, we do not support this Bill, but I do not understand why the Secretary of State is seeking to overturn the amendments tabled by Lord Murphy and passed in the other place yesterday. I listened very carefully to the arguments advanced by the Secretary of State, but I do not think they stand up, because the Lords amendments would not take away the commission’s ability to issue immunity to an individual who comes forward and gives truthful evidence about what happened. Lords amendment 44E is not a veto, but it would allow the families of those who were killed or seriously injured in the troubles to have some voice in the process—I understand that relatives of those who were murdered are with us in the Gallery, and they are still seeking justice.
Let me turn to the other provisions, relating to licence conditions that would apply to the person seeking immunity. I acknowledge what the Secretary of State just said about other changes having been made to the Bill, but these provisions seem very sensible and reasonable to me. I include in that the requirement that the individual in question should not approach or otherwise communicate with a victim, in the case of an injury, or with a victim’s family, in the case of a death, unless they consent. So we will vote against the Government’s motion to disagree with the Lords amendments today.
The Secretary of State has talked quite a bit about a disincentive to people coming forward, but I say to him that it is not entirely clear that immunity will achieve the purpose that the Government have for it. Given that every other means of justice is to be closed down, and given that the commission appears to have a lifespan of only five years, those who have committed dreadful crimes only need to sit it out. I say to the Secretary of State that if that were to happen and after the five years are over those individuals start to talk about, boast about or write books about what they have done, how will he explain to the families of those they murdered why the Government allowed that situation to arise? That would be the consequence of taking away from people, as this Bill does, the means of justice, however hard, however long, however uncertain. I acknowledge the point that the Secretary of State made about that.
This is the last occasion on which we will debate this highly controversial legislation, which concerns how we come to terms with the terrible legacy of violence and brutality during the troubles in a way that enables those  most affected—the families—finally to know what happened to the person they loved and to ensure that justice is done; to hold those responsible to account. This is the first time I have talked about this, given that I was appointed only on Monday, but I recognise how hard this is and I acknowledge the changes that the Secretary of State has made to the Bill during its passage, including his comment that when he inherited it he was not happy with it. However, he must accept that this legislation does not command the confidence of the people to whom he is trying to offer reassurance and comfort.
The most important word in the title of this Bill is “reconciliation”. We all want that to happen, but the Bill has self-evidently not achieved its aim, because all the communities in Northern Ireland are clearly not reconciled to its contents. It is so striking to see the extent to which the Government have failed to win support for their approach. The list of people and organisations opposed to this Bill is frankly astonishing: all of the political parties in Northern Ireland; the Churches in Northern Ireland; victims’ groups; the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; the former Victims’ Commissioner; the Irish Government; the Council of Europe; and the United Nations. Most extraordinary of all, it is reported that the person who has been appointed as the commissioner-designate, the highly respected Sir Declan Morgan, said recently that he would expect legal action by the families of victims of the troubles to try to challenge the Bill on whether it is compliant with the European convention on human rights.
That is the scale of the coalition that the Government have managed to range against themselves, but instead of reflecting on that, their approach has been to put their head down and plough on regardless. That is why, for all the Government’s good intentions, they have failed to win public confidence, even though the Government said in 2018:
“In order to build consensus on workable proposals that have widespread support we must listen to the concerns of victims, survivors and other interested parties.”
Doing the wrong thing is not a justification for this Bill, and if there is one lesson we must by now have learned about how to make progress in Northern Ireland, it is that it can only be achieved patiently, slowly and carefully, so as to build a consensus. I am sorry to say that the Bill does not do that and it will not achieve the purpose Ministers claim for it. That is why we are committed, as the Opposition, to repeal it, if we get the opportunity.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

Richard Thomson: I am well aware that time is limited; you will be pleased to hear, Mr Speaker, that so too is my capacity for repeating arguments that I have made many times previously. My party believes that this Bill is wrong in principle and that in practice it will not achieve the aims that the Secretary of State believes, no doubt with great sincerity, that it will. We will therefore be joining the official Opposition in voting to support the Lords amendments.

Gavin Robinson: I am grateful for the contributions made by Opposition Members thus far. A number of comments have been made this  afternoon that relate more to Second Reading than to the stage we are at. It should come as no surprise to those in the Chamber to hear that to us this is an irredeemable piece of legislation. Even though we were highlighting in this Chamber on Second Reading and so on the areas where significant flaws were ultimately going to prove fatal to support for this Bill, the Government entrenched themselves. On a number of discrete issues, they committed in this democratically elected Chamber, where they ignored our requests, that they would proceed with such amendments in the Lords. I find that unsatisfactory, although I recognise that my colleagues in the Lords continue to push on those issues. With Lords Dodds principally among them, they have ensured that some of the commitments given have been honoured. However, that does not change the fact that this is a fundamental assault on justice, with the erosion of hope for victims and of the opportunity to get the answers they seek and the outcome they desire. Those things have been snuffed out by a Government who have entrenched themselves, and I greatly regret that.
This afternoon we have an opportunity, with discrete and sensible amendments before us, as the shadow Secretary of State has said. They were tabled by the Labour party in the House of Lords, and were advocated and supported by Members across the other place yesterday afternoon. This is an opportunity for the Government to salvage at least some appropriate involvement for victims, whereby they can have their say and a sense of the outcome that they seek.
A contribution was made yesterday by Lord Eames, and it is worth repeating. He said:
“Yes, there have been attempts to bring the concept of victimhood into the legislation that is proposed, and yes, the Government can claim that they have made efforts, but, in God’s name, I ask your Lordships to consider the overall impetus of what changes have been made to try to recognise the needs of victims and their families, and of those who, in years to come, when they read what has been said, attempted and failed to be produced, will find it incredulous to understand that the Mother of Parliaments has ignored their crying.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 September 2023; Vol. 832, c. 343.]
Those words were worth repeating this afternoon because Lord Eames is somebody who has led the Church of Ireland but is in this Parliament as a peacemaker, and who went through an ill-fated attempt to reconcile issues of legacy in the past, in a consultative report with Denis Bradley in 2009. Within this Parliament and within our society, he is somebody who probably buried more people in Northern Ireland during the troubles than anyone else. When he exhorts in such clear terms that there is an opportunity finally for the Government, at this last gasp, to show some recognition of the pain, trauma, harm and pursuit of justice that victims show, the fact that this Government would not accept it is a great shame.
The list of organisations has been given—it was given by a former Secretary of State, Lord Murphy, yesterday in the House of Lords and by the shadow Secretary of State here today—showing the lack of support for the legislation. We will go through the Lobby this afternoon to register yet again our disappointment at a failed opportunity by this Government, who are more focused on what they can get out of this Bill as they campaign for the forthcoming election than on solving the intractable issues that have plagued our society for so long.

Stephen Farry: To start with the specific amendments before us, the Government’s approach, right to this eleventh hour—five minutes to midnight in terms of the Bill—reinforces the premise behind the Bill. Immunity is the central foundation stone on which this flawed Bill has been designed and taken forward, and the immunity clause goes to the heart of why there is no confidence in the legislation and why it has been rejected by so many stakeholders, most notably victims groups. That opposition spans the entire political spectrum in Northern Ireland.
Reference has been made to the history around this issue. I do not want to dwell on that overly, but there is a notion that the Stormont House agreement was not agreed to and was in some way flawed, and that we needed an alternative. Stormont House was agreed by virtually every political party and there were efforts made to implement it, but beyond the political parties it had the confidence of victims groups and the approval of independent human rights experts, so it was the basis of moving forward.
As has been said, as recently as “New Decade, New Approach”, Stormont House has explicitly been the policy of this Government. Within three months from the launch of “New Decade, New Approach”, we had, in effect, a handbrake turn, with a written ministerial statement by one of the Secretary of State’s predecessors, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir Brandon Lewis). It was very clear that the immunity concept, alongside the Conservative party manifesto, was driving that, so the whole premise of the Bill is driven by the politics of the Conversative party, not the needs of Northern Ireland. That is the fundamental reason why the Bill will never be seen as legitimate in any sense in Northern Ireland. Further, I do not understand the logic of a Secretary of State saying that Stormont House does not have full support, so we cannot proceed on that basis, and then, by extension, introducing a Bill that has no support from any political party or victims group in Northern Ireland. That seems utterly nonsensical to me.
I will not reiterate the point I made about human rights compliance, but I acknowledge that the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) echoed and reinforced the point that we will see legal challenges to the legislation.
Finally, I welcome what the shadow Secretary of State said about the repeal of the legislation. If we see a change of Government after the next election, I hope that will be a priority for the incoming Government.

Colum Eastwood: There are a lot of things that get me angry in this job, but this has got me more angry than anything I have ever had to deal with. The people sitting on the Benches occupied by Members representing Northern Ireland’s constituencies have had to deal with, get to know and work with the victims of our terrible past for decades. Frankly, I am embarrassed today, as I do not know what I am going to say to them when I speak to them after the debate, because as a whole—as a body politic—we have failed them.
We have a peace process, we have peace and lots of us have been able to move on, but we have left a very significant cohort of people behind, and we are rubber stamping that today. Some people will walk through the  Lobby coldly, without having the names of the victims ringing in their heads. I have their names going around my head right now—I have put many of them on record in this Chamber during the passage of the Bill. I am deeply ashamed that we are doing this today.
There is a pretence in the proposal for the Bill that somehow the British Government were not an actor at all in the conflict in Northern Ireland. That is patently untrue. They say that local political parties in Northern Ireland are just squabbling, cannot come up with any answers or deal with the problem. That is patently untrue. We came up with the answer, which was Stormont House. The reason it was not delivered is that the British Government dragged their feet and changed their policy after “New Decade, New Approach”. That is a fact.
I really hope that the Irish Government listen to the calls by some of us to take this UK Government to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, because the Bill is an affront to human rights and article 2. Every single expert I have spoken to agrees with me on that, and every single victim agrees with me on that as well.
The Secretary of State used the phrase “effective information recovery process” a lot of times. “Effective information recovery process”? I can take him to families today whose children—14 and 15 years old— were shot in the troubles and their cases have been closed by this Government until 2064 and 2065. Those people tell us they want an “effective information recovery process”, but the Government are denying victims “effective information recovery”, so that tells me that the Bill is based on a lie. It is an attempt by this Government and dark forces within the security apparatus of this Government to close down access to truth and justice.
We all understand that justice will be hard to get for many families, but most of those families have not even had any truth. The process of investigation gets them truths. I can take Members to loads of families today who never once even met a police officer, even though a loved one was murdered. Does anybody here believe that the IRA are going to come forward and tell us who bombed a particular pub or who shot a particular person? It is utter nonsense.
This is an attempt to close down access to the truth and it is an affront to democracy. Immunity? It is impunity, giving people a licence to murder people on the streets of Derry, Belfast, Newry and across Northern Ireland, and also on the streets of London. I do not understand how any politician can stand and look at the faces of crying victims and tell them that this is the right thing to do. I am ashamed that this is happening today.
Let me say one thing to end: I know these people. They have had to struggle for decade after decade. This will not be the end for them and we will be with them in support, right to the end.

Jim Shannon: I wish to add a few words. I will not be labouring too long in the Chamber, but it is important to make some comments in relation to where we are, as I again find myself in a position where I cannot support what the Government have put forward. While some Members on the Government Benches try to apologise  and condition their support for the Bill, Members on these Benches, including those from my party and our spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), as well as Members representing other parties, including the hon. Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for North Down (Stephen Farry), have put forward their comments very clearly.
I have many concerns over the processes in place for victims and the fact that there are not enough answers. There will be ongoing investigations, but will any of those investigations be into collusion over the border? In my intervention on the Secretary of State earlier I referred to discussions that the Secretary of State and the United Kingdom Government may have had with the Republic of Ireland in relation to collusion in investigations, which in some cases involved some members of the Garda Síochána, and to the fact that the Republic of Ireland gave sanctuary to IRA murderers who escaped across the borders. Those are issues that some of my constituents wish to know about.
In his reply, the Secretary of State said that he has had discussions with the Republic of Ireland in relation to those matters, but has the Republic of Ireland responded, given evidence or investigated in the way it should have done?

Sammy Wilson: The Government of the Irish Republic, again interfering in the affairs of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, have threatened to go to the European court on this issue. Does my hon. Friend agree with me, given how tarnished they are in regard to legacy, that whether we agree or disagree with the legislation that is being brought forward, this is an internal UK matter and should be dealt with internally, through the processes within the UK, not by an interfering Irish Government?

Jim Shannon: I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. He has put on record very clearly his point of view, and it is one to which many of us here subscribe.
Let me return to the points that I was trying to make about the Secretary of State’s reply. Have those discussions taken place? Has the evidential base been gathered? Have the accusations of collusion between the Garda Síochána and the IRA been considered? There was the murder of Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan in a car bomb on the border in 1989. The information that we have been made aware of indicates that details were passed to the IRA on what time they would be crossing the border. That is collusion. That is an evidential base for what happened. That information should be brought forward by the Republic of Ireland Government and conveyed to the Secretary of State and the Government here. There are many other such cases. For example, the murderers of Lexie Cummings in 1982 escaped across the border. The murderers of Ian Sproule in 1981 escaped across the border, and, again, the murderers of my own cousin, Kenneth Smyth, escaped across the border.

Paul Girvan: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. As this was raised in an earlier intervention, it would be interesting to say to the House that someone came forward and volunteered information, saying that they had been involved in the IRA campaign, and yet they have never served one day either in court or in prison for that. They were questioned in 1988 and  denied the allegation, but as recently as 2019 they made a full admission of their involvement in IRA activities. The case of the Hyde Park bomb, which saw 11 people killed and 51 injured, was never brought to court in relation to that. That was somebody who came forward recently and made that admission.

Jim Shannon: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that matter. He has clearly outlined an evidential base, which has to be part of this process. Unfortunately, though, with this Bill that process does not continue in the way that we hoped it would.
I wish very quickly to speak to the Lords amendments. They have established minimum criminal justice standards for a “review” along the lines of Operation Kenova. The amendments would require the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the standards to which reviews by the Independent Commission for Reconciliation & Information Recovery are carried out, including what measures should be used to ensure that reviews comply sufficiently with the obligations under the European convention on human rights. The shadow Secretary of State, whom I welcome to his place, referred to that specifically in his contribution. I was very encouraged by his comments here today—I think we all were—and look forward to constructive engagement with him as we move forward. What is also covered is whether as much information as possible should be gathered by reviews in relation to death or harmful conduct, and whether all evidential opportunities should be explored by reviews. Victims must be consulted, and regulations can be changed if reviews are conducted in a way not envisaged.
That is what the Lords amendments were hoping to achieve. It is disappointing to me personally and to all of us who represent Northern Ireland that that has not been fully considered by the Government. It is regrettable that the Government have resisted efforts to embed minimum criminal justice standards at the heart of how the ICRIR conducts reviews. They seem intent not only on narrowing the legal routes, but weakening investigative standards in those aspects that remain. It is hard not to reach the conclusion that the distinction made between “review” and “investigation” in the context of the Bill is more about drawing a line under the past with minimal fuss in the shortest timeframe possible, than about actually securing the answers and information that the victims and their families deserve and crave.
In conclusion, it grieves me to stand against the Government on these issues, but, on behalf of the victims, I wish to say very clearly that those in the Public Gallery today expect to see all those who perpetrated and carried out crimes to be held accountable. That is not happening. The unfortunate thing for all of us here—those in the Public Gallery who have lost loved ones, we in this Chamber who have lost loved ones and for all of us who represent Northern Ireland—is that this is a retrograde step. It extinguishes very clearly the hope for justice that we all want for those people who lost their lives to the troubles.

Chris Heaton-Harris: With the leave of the House, I will answer a couple of the points that have been raised. I am grateful to all hon. Members for their contributions in the debate today. I know that the time that I have is relatively short, so I shall try to keep to it.
As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) was just speaking I was reminded of a question that I received from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) in the second but last Northern Ireland Office questions. She was approached by a constituent who was after information about what had happened to one of their loved ones. So there are people out there who will try to find, and do find, information about their loved one if it can possibly be done. The fact is that if people do not co-operate, they will not be granted immunity and therefore they will remain liable to prosecution, and that will mean using all the police powers at the new body’s disposal. The Government’s position is that we still feel that the prospect of successful prosecutions is increasingly unlikely, but, none the less, that prospect remains.
If I may, I will correct one thing that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said—it is a straightforward correction and is not meant in any political way. It is not correct to state that the ICRIR has a lifespan of five years. The commission will be wound up by the Secretary of State at the time via affirmative resolution only once it has discharged all its functions as set out under clause 2, so its lifespan could be quite a bit longer than five years. I just thought that I would share that.
I do recognise that this is a hugely difficult Bill and a hugely difficult task—an unbelievably difficult task—which is reflected in the number of valiant attempts made to address the issue since the Good Friday agreement.

Gregory Campbell: The Secretary of State is outlining the difficulty surrounding this entire process. Given the convoluted, protracted nature of this for such a long time and given what inevitably will happen when this passes as it will, it will end up in the High Court. Does he understand that this will be an entirely convoluted, academic process that will end up nowhere?

Chris Heaton-Harris: I am afraid that I do not.
I was saying that a number of valiant attempts have been made to address this issue since the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. As I have reminded the House in the past, in one debate that I attended with some of the women who were behind the Good Friday agreement, one was asked what was her biggest regret about the time. The regret was that nothing was done for victims.
A number of these attempts were undertaken when the right hon. Member for Leeds Central was a Minister in Government. Indeed, I slightly worry about his brilliant academic mind and his recall for any of our future exchanges, but I know that he will remember all too well the difficulties and complexities involved in these issues. None the less, it is incumbent on us to ensure that any process for dealing with the past focuses on measures that can deliver positive outcomes for as many of those directly affected by the troubles as possible.
That comes—it really does—with finely balanced political and moral choices, including a conditional immunity process, which I acknowledge is difficult for very many, but we must be honest about what we can realistically deliver for people in circumstances where the prospects of achieving justice in the traditional  sense are so vanishingly small. That is why the Government are unable to support the Opposition and will be disagreeing to Lords amendments 44D, 44E, 44F, 44G, 44H and 44J.
I will close my comments by recognising that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central has come to this debate with a fresh pair of eyes. Quite understandably, he has not had much more than 48 hours to go through what is a very detailed piece of legislation, but I know that he has followed these debates in great detail from the Back Benches. I know that in due course he will look at this and reach his own conclusions. I encourage him when doing so to reflect on the immense difficulty of this task, and to consider how the Government have genuinely sought to strengthen the legislation with encouragement from his party. He may also want to consider the toughest of all questions: if not this Bill, then what? I hope that upon Royal Assent the Opposition will engage constructively with the chief commissioner to help to ensure that the new commission can deliver the better outcomes for all those affected by the troubles that everyone across this House would like to achieve.
Question put.

The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 205.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendments 44D, 44E, 44F, 44G, 44H and 44J disagreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to Lords amendments 44D, 44E, 44F, 44G, 44H and 44J;
That Chris Heaton-Harris, Robert Largan, Alexander Stafford, Tom Hunt, Chris Elmore, Tonia Antoniazzi and Richard Thomson be members of the Committee;
That Chris Heaton-Harris be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Mike Wood.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,
That, at today’s sitting, notwithstanding paragraph (2)(c) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business), business in the name of the Leader of the Opposition may be entered upon at any hour and may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours; proceedings shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Penny Mordaunt.)

Opposition Day - 18th Allotted Day (Second Part)Opposition Day

Safety of School Buildings

Bridget Phillipson: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that there will be laid before this House by 13 September 2023 the following papers –
(a) submissions from the Department for Education to HM Treasury related to the spending reviews in 2020 and 2021; and
(b) all papers, advice, and correspondence, including submissions and electronic communications (including communications with and from Ministers and Special Advisers) within and between the Cabinet Office (including the Office of the Prime Minister), the Department for Education and HM Treasury relating to these submissions concerned with school buildings.
Today we seek the release of papers that would tell us what has and what has not been happening in our schools—papers that the Government refused again yesterday to release and about which the Prime Minister again evaded questions today. However, this debate is about much more than just the documents. It is about more than reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. It is about more than school buildings and their safety. This debate quite simply is about responsibility, and whether the Prime Minister will come clean about the allegation that he knew the risks, that he was warned, that he was told.
That is the issue in the motion before the House today: whether the Prime Minister was told that urgent action was needed to secure the safety of schools, but instead he slashed the cost of champagne; whether he will accept responsibility for his choices and whether he will be clear where responsibility lies. All of us are here with deep responsibilities to our constituents, to be open, to be honest, to take decisions objectively and selflessly, to accept accountability, to have integrity and to show leadership.
Let me be clear right from the outset that a Labour Government would have shown leadership on this, not just in the last few weeks but for years on end. That was our record in government. A Labour Secretary of State, faced today with a sudden crisis such as this, would have got those lists of the affected schools out quickly, would have been straight back to London, would have been communicating every day to parents and above all to children, would be taking steps not just to mitigate the immediate challenges around safety—[Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. She is not giving way. Perhaps she will give way later.

Bridget Phillipson: We would remember the lesson from the pandemic that every school day matters. We would be ensuring the continuity of education for every child in school. We would be ensuring in-person learning for all our children. We would be doing that right now, and we would not be looking for plaudits, blaming others, or demanding praise. We would accept responsibility for what had gone wrong on our watch, and we would take responsibility for fixing it—fixing it fast, fixing it to last and fixing it for good.
The Government cannot even fix sending out their suggested interventions for today’s debate to the right set of Back-Benchers. It is hardly a surprise that they cannot fix the chaos in our schools. Here we are today, because of the utter shambles that has accompanied the start of a new school year for so many children. The public realm is literally crumbling around the next generation. The defining image of 13 years of Conservative Government is children cowering under steel props to stop the ceiling literally falling in on their heads.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: Is it not always the case that when the Conservatives are in power, our schools crumble? In 1997 one in five schools were inadequate and needed to be rebuilt by a Labour Government. Because the Conservatives slashed the rebuilding programme, under this Government we are in the same dire situation again, and the only party that can fix it is a Labour party in government.

Bridget Phillipson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Like him, I remember the transformation that that Labour Government delivered. I will come to that in more detail during the debate.

Hywel Williams: The Welsh Labour Government have complained that the briefing they received lacked the technical detail required to take forward the work on schools. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Secretary of State should provide the other Governments with full details from the working group when they become available?

Bridget Phillipson: I know that Conservative Members have a keen fascination with all things going on in Wales at the moment, and that Ministers have not always been in full possession of the facts at the Dispatch Box, so I will put a few on the record so that we can all be clear about the situation in Wales. In Wales, school capital funding has increased by around 122% in cash terms, and 23% in real terms, between 2014-15 and 2023-24. Perhaps we can use that as the basis for slightly more informed debate during today’s discussions.
Today, our first priority must be safety—as it must always be. Guaranteeing that safety must ultimately be the responsibility of Ministers and of Government. That is why I repeatedly pressed the Secretary of State to publish a full list of all the schools with concerns about RAAC, which she has at last published today. However, I gently note that there could be omissions on that list, a number of which have already been drawn to my attention. I hope that we can get full clarity about the situation across our schools.

Alun Cairns: The hon. Lady has made a whole series of allegations and challenges about the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, but surely, in a devolved arrangement, all those responsibilities and challenges apply equally to the First Minister. She has recognised that the list of schools in England has been published; why has such a list not been published for Wales? Does she accept that that is an example of the Welsh Government failing education and schools in Wales?

Bridget Phillipson: The difference between the Labour Government in Wales and the Government here in Westminster is that, over the last 13 years, the Welsh  Government have continued with a school rebuilding programme, unlike the UK Government, who have cut funding and cut support to our schools time and again.
We want to be clear, open and honest with local authorities and multi-academy trusts about the steps that the Secretary of State is taking to get in place the protections and mitigations that are needed. She said on Monday:
“Absolutely nothing is more important than the safety of children and staff. It has always been the case that where we are made aware of a building that poses an immediate risk, we have taken immediate action.”—[Official Report, 4 September 2023; Vol. 737, c. 52.]
Yet she was keen to spread the responsibility for the concrete crisis through time and space, including to her colleagues, who I understand had been sitting on their backsides; to the Welsh Government—a topic of interest for Members—whose ability to act swiftly has been hampered by key information not being shared; and to the last Labour Government, who left office 13 years ago.
The Secretary of State was keen to emphasise that it was not her Department’s responsibility, or hers, to ensure the safety of our children at school. Pushing responsibility on to others—local authorities, the schools themselves, multi-academy trusts—without the powers, resources or support they need, is very simply passing the buck, and my word, there has been an awful lot of that this week.
As Ministers have been keen to remind us, concerns were first raised about RAAC back in the 1990s. By then, the wider issue was that too many schools, built quickly and cheaply in the previous 50 years, were approaching the end of their design life. The issues were many: RAAC, asbestos and the simple reality—in the school I went to and in so many other state schools across our the country—of buckets in corridors, classrooms blackened by mould, windows that did not close and doors that would not shut.
I was at school back in the mid ’90s, but I know how serious Labour politicians took those warnings, and I am proud that as the scale of the challenge became clear, Labour Ministers rose to it. In 2004, the Buildings Schools for the Future programme was launched to rebuild every secondary school in our country over 15 years. In 2007, Building Schools for the Future was joined by the primary capital programme to give every child the chance to learn safely in a first-rate learning environment. That was done not because it was simple or quick, nor because there were no easier, more popular or more eye-catching choices, but because it was right, because it was responsible, and because that Labour Government believed then, as we do now, that excellence must be for everyone, and that every child deserves the best start—not just some children, but all our children.
The change we saw in 2010, when the Conservatives entered Government, reflected a very different approach: an entirely botched cancellation of existing programmes not by Ministers long since retired, but by the Minister for Schools, the right hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb), who is still sitting on the Treasury Bench today, and by a former Education Secretary, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who is still in the Cabinet. Ambitions were reduced and timelines extended. Ministers knew  the consequences when they took those decisions. They banked the savings and left our schools to rot slowly, quietly and inexorably.

Meg Hillier: Does my hon. Friend not think that the vast, overinflated amounts of money spent on some free school sites could have been better spent dealing with the collapsing schools?

Bridget Phillipson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all the work that she has done over many years, as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, to draw our attention to the problems. I will say a bit more about the recent report by the National Audit Office on many of these issues.
When we leave risks unattended, they worsen and, in time, things start to fail—first quickly, then suddenly. In July 2018, a ceiling suddenly collapsed at Singlewell Primary School in Kent, where RAAC failed without warning. Mercifully, no one was hurt. Months passed, and an alert from central Government and the Local Government Association went out that autumn emphasising the risks. It said:
“The limited durability of RAAC roofs and other RAAC structures has long been recognised; however recent experience (which includes two roof failures with little or no warning) suggests the problem may be more serious than previously appreciated and that many building owners are not aware that it is present in their property.”
Let me emphasise that final point: many building owners are not aware.
A few months after that, in May 2019, the Standing Committee on Structural Safety issued a note on the failure of RAAC planks. It said that all those installed before 1980
“are now past their expected service life and it is recommended that consideration is given to their replacement.”
It was not until March 2022—almost four years after that ceiling collapsed—that the Department for Education responded to the challenge of RAAC. How? It sent out a survey—not a surveyor, not a team of surveyors, and not even funding for surveyors, but a survey. If the issue was such a priority, and if the Secretary of State and her Department believed in immediate action, why, after a school collapsed in July 2018, did it take almost four years for the Department to send out a survey about RAAC in March 2022? I appreciate that the Secretary of State was not in post throughout that time, but responsibility in Government is not merely individual; crucially, it is collective and enduring. It stretches across Government and down the years. If she does not understand that point, perhaps she could seek advice from the Schools Minister, who has been in post for so many years, as he is today.

Simon Baynes: The key fact is that the Welsh Government ordered surveys only in May 2023, while the UK Government started engaging with schools in 2022. Surely that shows a woeful lack of responsibility.

Bridget Phillipson: I have here a briefing document. It would save us all a bit of time and energy if Conservative Members just gave us the number and let us deal with it. The Welsh Labour Government have been taking consistent  action to rebuild schools during their time in office; the hon. Gentleman might not like it, but it is a fact, and that stands in stark contrast to what has been happening here in England.

Stephen Timms: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. The Work and Pensions Committee highlighted last year the growing number of retired schoolteachers succumbing to mesothelioma because of exposure to asbestos during their working life. At the current rate of progress, it will take 350 years to remove all the asbestos from schools. Does she agree that the Department must get a move on with that?

Bridget Phillipson: My right hon. Friend is right to draw our attention to that matter, and I appreciate the work that his Committee has done on it. It would also be helpful if we had some clarity today from the Secretary of State about the risks that might arise when RAAC interacts with asbestos. If she could say a little bit more about that, I am sure all Members from across the House would be grateful.

Bernard Jenkin: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Bridget Phillipson: I am just going to make a bit more progress.
For a responsible politician, being in government is not simply a matter of pressing the agenda of their political party, their donors or those who profit from Government contracts. It is about rising to the challenges that face our country, and accepting the blame when things go wrong as the price of acclaim when they go well.
The point about RAAC was made very ably by the Secretary of State, who said:
“a school can collapse for many reasons, not just RAAC”.
They can indeed! So many things are wrong right now with our schools estate: there are faulty boilers, inadequate insulation, roofs leaking, and asbestos in around four out of five of our schools; and as the pandemic taught us, ventilation is simply not good enough in too many of our schools. How do we know that? The condition data collection tells us all of it. By the Department’s own admission, that exercise was not even a proper structural survey, despite coming 20 years after the risks of RAAC were first flagged, and seven years after the Government cancelled Labour’s school rebuilding programmes, having not even looked at hazardous materials.
The condition data collection found that more than 7,000 elements of the school estate were in poor condition and needed to be prioritised for replacement. Were all those someone else’s responsibility, too? Even the money that the Department did commit—the spending allocations of which the Minister for Schools speaks so proudly so often, with the keen pride of a Minister wholly oblivious to the scale of their own failure—was not all spent. Again, whose fault is that? Whose responsibility might that have been?
We are told that part of the difficulty in recent years has been finding the skilled labour to deliver the work that our schools so desperately need. I invite Conservative Members to reflect briefly on why exactly that might be. Could it be the dramatic overall drop in apprenticeship starts, the shortage of construction apprenticeships in  recent years, or the utter failure of the Government’s apprenticeship levy to deliver spending on skills at the scale and pace we need? Could it be their wider failures on further education and in-work training? Thirteen years into a Conservative Government, who will take responsibility for that?
It was a Conservative Prime Minister who once savaged the press of this country for seeking “power without responsibility”. Today, that is the entire ideology of the whole Conservative party. That failure to accept responsibility is not merely the ethic of the Secretary of State and her Ministers; it comes right from the very top. Today’s Prime Minister was yesterday’s Chancellor, and we know—not just from the former most senior official at the Department for Education, but from the Schools Minister himself—that at the 2021 spending review, when even Ministers knew that the problems needed tackling urgently and the rate of rebuilding needed to soar, the now Prime Minister said no, and every Conservative Member accepted that. Cheaper champagne, yes; safer schools, no. There has never been a clearer picture of the priorities of the Conservative party.
The Prime Minister, fond as he is of private donations to his old school, has form on saying no to high standards in schools for other people’s children. He said no to the proper pandemic recovery plan that the Government’s own recovery tsar recommended. In 2021, he said no to the capital spend that would have kept our schools safe and our children learning. Last spring, he said no to the desperate pleas of civil servants in the Department for Education for the resources to make schools safe. In his spending review speech back in 2021, he even boasted of returning overall real-terms education spending in a few years’ time to the levels of the last Labour Government. That was not an admission, wrung as a repentant confession; it was a boast, made with pride, that one day—but perhaps not yet—he would take education as seriously as Labour.
Those who complain about party politics might reflect for just a moment on whether they would level the same accusation at the National Audit Office. In June, the NAO reported that
“Following years of underinvestment, the estate’s overall condition is declining and around 700,000 pupils are learning in a school that the responsible body or DfE believes needs major rebuilding or refurbishment. Most seriously, DfE recognises significant safety concerns across the estate, and has escalated these concerns to the government risk register.”
Just yesterday, in respect of RAAC, the Comptroller and Auditor General was clear that
“the long-term risks it posed took too long to be properly addressed”.
On the sustained inadequacy of the Government’s capital programme, he went even further:
“Failure to bite this bullet leads to poor value, with more money required for emergency measures or a sticking plaster approach.”
Failing to bite the bullet; poor value; a sticking-plaster approach—13 years into this Government, those are absolutely damning words from the Government’s own spending watchdog.

Rushanara Ali: My hon. Friend will be aware that Jonathan Slater, the former permanent secretary, said that civil servants told the Government that there was a “critical risk to life”  because of the dodgy buildings, and the failure to follow advice and invest in making sure our schools are safe. Does she agree that this Government are seriously putting children’s lives at risk through their incompetence and negligence, and through the failure of the Prime Minister to make sure there is proper investment in our schools?

Bridget Phillipson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If Ministers are confident about everything they have done and the decisions that were taken, they will back our motion today, allow us to see the papers, and be transparent with this House.

Sarah Owen: I should be shocked by the lack of humility from Conservative Front Benchers, but sadly, I am not. Schools are literally collapsing around us, and the Conservatives want people to thank them for it. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Education Secretary needs to get a grip and explain why her offices got a £34 million refurbishment while schools are crumbling under this Tory Government?

Bridget Phillipson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a very important point.
Finally, let me turn to the wording of the motion. I know that many Conservative Members share Labour’s concerns, and I ask them today to think of the young people and the school staff in their constituency. However loyal they have been in every past debate, I ask them to help us put truth and transparency first, and to force responsibility on their Front Benchers. It is time for the full truth to come out about why our schools are unsafe today, and whose decision that was. It is time at last for Ministers, and the Prime Minister in particular, to take and accept responsibility for the broken country they will leave behind. I commend the motion to the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Before I call the Secretary of State, it will be obvious to the House that a great many people wish to speak this afternoon, so there will be a time limit of approximately five minutes on Back-Bench speeches. I give that warning; I can see that colleagues are looking at their long notes, and hopefully taking a few pages out of them.

Gillian Keegan: This Government are committed to making sure that every child in this country gets a first-class education and every opportunity to make the most of their abilities. More than that, underpinning that commitment is a deeper one: to ensure that children are safe and secure in the places where they learn. I am glad that the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) has chosen to raise the issue of the safety of school buildings and investment in the school estate. Nothing is more important than the safety of children and staff in our schools, and no issue could highlight more my willingness to take the right decisions, even if they are politically difficult. The country, and the children in our schools, deserve nothing less. As I set out in the House on Monday, the Government will not shy away from that responsibility, no matter how much the Labour party descends into the political gutter.
I understand that parents, schools and this House are concerned about the issue of RAAC; we are acting responsibly and moving decisively to address it, and minimising disruption to education. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) is shouting from a sedentary position, so I will answer her question: £34 million was signed off for a Government building for the Department for Education. That was signed off by the Department’s commercial director, and was nothing to do with me. That was based on a decision made in 2019, before I was Minister. The right hon. Lady is very experienced, so I am sure that she will understand that Ministers do not sign off on Government buildings. It was the commercial director of the DFE who signed that off in 2019.
To go back to the issue in this case, because that was very misleading, we are dealing not with an issue caused in the last year, the last five years, the last decade or even the last 20 years, but with a legacy issue dating back to the 1950s. As the Chancellor set out, we will not shirk this responsibility and we will spend whatever it takes to keep children safe.

Richard Burgon: In Leeds, our school repair backlog is over £66 million, and the council is given £6 million a year by the Government to tackle that. The lead councillor for education, Councillor Jonathan Pryor, has written to every single Secretary of State for Education since 2018. Eight letters have been sent to raise school condition funding, but all pleas have been ignored. Does the Secretary of State really think that is acceptable?

Gillian Keegan: I will look at Leeds specifically, but we have awarded millions to Leeds. The biggest difference between our programme and any programme that was ever done by your Government when they were in power—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I think the Secretary of State means “his Government”.

Gillian Keegan: I am sorry. Unlike the hon. Gentleman’s Government when they were in power, we actually did a conditions survey. We have done two conditions surveys and we have done a full RAAC survey, which we are now finishing with the responses that are coming in. We know the conditions; previously, the Labour Government did not know anything about the conditions and no decisions were made based on the condition of schools.

Lyn Brown: St Francis’ primary school in my constituency identified RAAC problems way back in 2019. It had to fund its own survey to do that. Since 2019, St Francis’ has submitted two bids to make its roof safe, and both were rejected. They appealed both times, and both appeals were rejected. Can I ask the Secretary of State how she can justify the rejection of those bids, and how can she justify the potentially much higher costs that must now be paid from the public purse to make St Francis’ safe?

Gillian Keegan: The hon. Lady raises a good point, because of course the responsible body, St Francis’, has done the right thing by doing its survey. That is what everybody was asked to do in 2019 and in 2018, and in  guidance since then. There are conditions and condition-based requests, and if the school wants to get in touch and give us the details, I am very happy to look at that case. I am very serious about making sure that we get rid of RAAC in our schools.
The school estate consists of over 22,000 schools and sixth-form colleges, with over 64,000 blocks. Of course, the condition varies across the estate, and a number of buildings are reaching the end of their useful life. That is why we have a 10-year rebuilding programme, and why the spending reviews in 2020 and 2021 allocated more than £7 billion for maintenance allocations for schools on top of that programme.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Gillian Keegan: I should make a bit of progress, because I do have an awful lot of this in the speech. I really do want to satisfy people with detailed information because I have a lot of it.
Although local authorities, academy trusts and other bodies are directly responsible for school buildings, we support them by allocating significant capital funding each year, delivering major rebuilding programmes and providing guidance on effective estate management. Responsible bodies’ local knowledge of their estates and their work to maintain their estates make them much better placed to ensure that school and college buildings are kept safe, compliant with regulations and in good working order. However, the Department always stands ready to provide additional support on a case-by-case basis if we are alerted to a safety issue by those responsible bodies. This is the normal pattern of maintenance—a careful and calibrated local response.
However, we judged in this case that the issue of RAAC required us to take a much more proactive and direct approach. This approach is unprecedented across the UK, where England is leading. Sensing the scale of the potential challenge, we improved our surveying so that we had the capacity to act, even if we did not need to do so. Our condition data collection, which ran from 2017 to 2019, visited nearly all 22,000 schools and sixth-form colleges, and is one of the largest data collections of its kind. It helps us to understand what is needed in schools and to target our efforts in the way that best meets needs. In contrast, over the 13 years of the last Labour Government, there was not a single comprehensive review of the school estate. Yes, that is right: they were simply in the dark. Individual reports from the condition data collection—

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Gillian Keegan: I will make a bit of progress, but I am not ignoring Members and I will take other interventions.

Richard Graham: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Gillian Keegan: I will make a bit of progress, and then I will come back to both hon. Members.
As we became aware of the specific issues with RAAC, we supplemented the data collection with more targeted surveys especially for RAAC. That was done so that when we made decisions, we would be able to act. I will leave colleagues to draw their own conclusions from the fact that Labour-run Wales is now playing catch-up to  identify where RAAC is in its school estate. On the question from the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), we briefed Wales verbally on new technical guidance on 1 September and we shared visual information on three cases over the weekend.

Richard Graham: None of us should be here to criticise the scrutiny of safety in schools, so can I thank the Department for dispatching fast, as requested, two surveyors to look at the one school in my constituency of Gloucester that is potentially affected? I also thank them for completing their mission fast, so that the head could today confirm to his teachers, parents and pupils alike that there is no RAAC in the school whatsoever.

Gillian Keegan: I thank my hon. Friend, and he is absolutely right. That is what we are doing with any work. We are being ultra-cautious here. The decision I have made is ultra-cautious, and first of all it is to make sure that we survey all schools as quickly as possible.

Layla Moran: By the same volition, a school in my constituency sent in the results of the survey on 14 July and was promised by the Department that it would be contacted on Friday or Monday with the report, but it has heard from no one and it was given a telephone number that gets it through to the wrong department. We now have children out of school as a precautionary measure, which is surely unacceptable. Will the Secretary of State look at this case, but will she also say how many other schools are in this position?

Gillian Keegan: I will definitely look at that case, because that sounds as though it took place before the decision I took and also before I stood up the caseworkers, proppers, cabinets and portacabins. If the hon. Lady will give me the details of that case, I will look at it, because that should not be happening. What should be happening is exactly the same as what my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) laid out.

Meg Hillier: The Secretary of State is confident, it seems, that there are enough surveyors to do this work, but since she made this decision about schools, questions have been raised about many other public buildings and I suspect structural surveyors are now in much shorter supply. Is she still confident that structural engineers and surveyors will be available to do this work, and is she sticking to her timetable of having answers by the end of next week?

Gillian Keegan: I am confident that, because we started early, we have done a lot of these surveys already. Quite a lot of the schools were involved at the beginning, so I am confident of that. I am also confident that the NHS has conducted surveys of its main buildings, and I think the courts have also done surveys. However, we have now increased the number of surveying companies from three to eight to make sure that we can get through all the cases, including any that Members are concerned about, as soon as possible.

Margaret Greenwood: Back in January this year, I submitted a written question to the Government about the number of schools in my  constituency of Wirral West that had buildings rated as very likely to collapse. In the response I received, the Schools Minister said:
“Department officials are clear that there are no areas within schools open to pupils where there is a known immediate risk of collapse.”
Presumably those buildings would be evacuated if that was the case—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I appreciate that the Secretary of State has been very generous in giving way to Members, but she will not be as aware as I am that there are 22 people who wish to speak this afternoon. The Secretary of State is very politely giving way to Members who are not going to take part in the debate, and if we have long interventions from those Members, people who are waiting to speak will not have the chance to do so when we come to the end of the debate. I am trying to get some fairness into this, but I do appreciate that the Secretary of State is being polite and I will allow her to respond to the intervention.

Gillian Keegan: Thank you for that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and for giving me the reminder, because I do not want to take time away from people who have put in to speak. What my right hon. Friend the Schools Minister said is absolutely right: any time there is an immediate risk, action is immediately taken. However, what we were doing was more preventive than that: finding out where everything was, so that we could act. When the three new cases happened over the summer, that is when I made a decision to be very cautious, because I did not want to take any risk whatsoever. I knew exactly where to go, because I knew exactly which schools were judged as non-critical. I knew exactly what we needed to do.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Gillian Keegan: I am sorry but I will not give way. I know I promised the hon. Gentleman, but I will see if I can make a bit more progress.
We deposited copies of the school condition data in the House Libraries on 20 July this year, in advance of the summer recess. It is also available on the Parliament website, and I am sure that many Members who are interested in this subject will be interested in seeing it. The successor programme, CDC2, is now under way. Early indications from the programme, which has been under way since March 2021 and will finish in 2026, and feedback from the sector suggest that in almost every case where a D grade—a bad condition—was identified in CDC1, it has since been addressed. We are getting on with the job. That is a demonstration of the approach that I and my Department are taking: we identify where the issue is and how severe it is, then we take the right corrective action. That is what our children deserve and what our schools deserve. When we have data, we can act to improve our schools.
The 2021 spending review announced a total of £19 billion of capital funding to support the education sector between 2022-23 and 2024-25, including £5.4 billion for school condition allocations. That includes £3.6 billion announced in allocations for the first two years of the period to improve the condition of the school estate. That is in addition to the school rebuilding programme, which is rebuilding 500 schools over 10 years. That  builds on nearly £30 billion of capital between 2016-17 and 2021-22, including over £13 billion for improving or replacing buildings.
Improving education is this Government’s mission. Ensuring that our education settings are safe is a key part of that, and we therefore prioritise it as part of our capital funding, and actively manage funding and support for the school estate to stay open and safe. I also note the distinction between our targeted approach and what came before. The system we inherited was found by an independent review of capital to be poorly targeted and wasteful. We on this side of the House have acted to protect children, while others have ignored problems for decades. School building is more effective and efficient than ever before. The significant investments made in education in recent years by this Government, coupled with essential reform, have raised standards for our children and given them a better chance of success in life.
Since 2010, we have reformed our capital programmes to bring down the cost of school building. The James review of education capital in 2011 found that Building Schools for the Future, the programme that the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South is proud of, was overly bureaucratic and did not deliver outcomes that were good or affordable. Just as the people of Birmingham are finding out so heartbreakingly today, and as I saw as a young girl growing up in Liverpool, the consequences of Labour always see things worse off than when they started. By contrast, at the 2020 spending review we announced our 10-year school rebuilding programme, which will transform buildings at 500 schools across England. We have already announced 400 of those schools, including 239 in December 2022, prioritising those in poor condition and with evidence of potential safety issues.

Shaun Bailey: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Gillian Keegan: Perhaps I could make a little more progress, as I feel I will not have been fair if I don’t.
We currently have a further 100 places on the programme, and the Government will continue to focus on investing in the school estate. We strive to deliver value for money—it is easy to spend money, but getting value for money is what the people of this country expect—and ensure that our capital funding is spent as efficiently as possible. As the National Audit Office concluded in 2017, the priority school building programme, the predecessor to our school rebuilding programme, replaced schools more efficiently, costing approximately a third less per square metre than the previous capital programme, Building Schools for the Future.
We committed to 500 schools over 10 years through our rebuilding programme, with an average of 50 schools entering delivery every year. That is in line with the scale of projects delivered every year since the start of its predecessor. There has been some debate about the scale of rebuilding in recent days, but the level of our ambition is unchanged. We have not scaled back our ambitions for school rebuilding, and we will not. Although the school rebuilding programme is in its initial stages of delivery, it is ramping up as more projects begin construction. The exact amount that rebuilding programmes  spend will differ year on year, based on the stage of delivery that projects are in at any given time. That is the norm for significant capital projects, which means that when we try to make comparisons, a lot of cherry-picking goes on.
Overall since 2012, 524 schools have been rebuilt or refurbished through our central rebuilding programmes, and a further 408 are in the pipeline. We are building schools more quickly, more efficiently, and better targeted on condition and need than ever before. Sometimes, however, there will be issues that we have to deal with outside the normal processes. The role of Government and of Ministers is to respond to that, and to take ownership and full responsibility.
When new information about RAAC crossed my desk over the summer, I understood that the buck stopped with me, even if the problem was 50 years in the making. As I set out in my statement to the House on Monday, the safety of pupils and staff is this Government’s absolute priority. We have regularly and swiftly updated our guidance in line with the latest technical advice, to ensure that responsible bodies are aware of the risks and able to act. In light of the three new cases over the summer, and given the disparate nature of the schools estate and, most importantly, the fact that children were involved, we made the difficult decision that it was no longer reasonable or safe for spaces known to contain RAAC to be used. That was a very difficult decision, because there were operational implications for others, and an impact on parents and children.
It is important to note that the technical advice on RAAC does not say that we must put mitigations in place in all buildings—that is not what the RAAC advice says. Where RAAC is present, we can keep it as long as we manage it well. We have acted with the utmost caution to reassure parents and teachers, and to establish a comprehensive plan to mitigate and resolve settings with RAAC, because we know where they are. Let me be clear: we were able to do that only because we had prepared for this eventuality. I had hoped that that preparation would be unnecessary, but sadly it was not and I had to take a decision. I am grateful to previous Secretaries of State who made decisions to ensure that we were able to establish where RAAC was present, and to act rapidly. We could show leadership, we could show direction, and we could tell people exactly where to go with their portacabins and with their propping.
Professional advice from technical experts on RAAC has evolved over time, and the question of how to manage its risks has spanned successive Governments since 1994.
Nobody is blameless in that, including Labour Members, who were warned in 1999, 2002, and 2007 alike. Unlike them, I am interested in keeping our children safe and improving learning. They try to play politics, and they can play politics all they like, but as they are finding in Wales, the public can smell opportunism and recoil at politicians who fail to show leadership.
We on the Government side of the House saw the risk and decided to prepare. My Department alerted the sector about the potential risks of RAAC in 2018, and in February 2021 we issued guidance. We were concerned that not all responsible bodies were acting quickly enough, so we decided to take a more direct approach, as I laid out on Monday, ensuring that we got all the surveys. We found out where RAAC was and we took action.
The vast majority of schools will be unaffected, as we have set out in information published today, and 104 of the affected settings are offering face-to-face education for pupils. Each impacted school and college has a dedicated caseworker to help implement a mitigation plan. For the past few days that has been my main concern—operationalising this, and ensuring that we can establish and scale up a programme to give schools the support they need due to the decisions I had to take. Most people will receive little disruption to their education, but that could include using other spaces on the school site, or in nearby schools or elsewhere in the local area, until structural supports or temporary buildings are installed. Project delivery, property and technical experts will be on hand to support schools to put face-to-face education measures in place as quickly as possible. We have published the list of schools that we know to be affected by RAAC, and we will be publishing an update in two weeks. It was important to give those affected schools and colleges time to focus on mitigations with support from my Department, and to inform parents directly. Thanks to the hard work of education leaders and local councils, 104 settings are providing face-to-face learning for all pupils this week. A further 20 settings have hybrid arrangements in place, with some pupils learning off-site, while 19 have delayed the start of term by a few days to ensure that pupils can start attending face-to-face learning safely on site. Only a very small number—four—have needed to move to remote learning. We anticipate that the majority of those will be able to offer pupils face-to-face learning soon, ensuring that disruption to education is kept to a minimum. Nine settings have since been found not to have RAAC after being reinvestigated.
I want to be clear that we will spend whatever it takes to keep children safe, with extra funding coming from DFE capital budgets to fund mitigations. That includes paying for emergency mitigation work needed to make buildings safe, including alternative classroom space where necessary. Where schools need additional help with revenue costs, such as transport to other locations, we are actively engaging with every school affected to put appropriate support in place. We will also fund longer-term refurbishment projects, or rebuilding projects where needed—taking responsibility, taking action and showing leadership.
As all Members know, the spending review is the process that determines how the Government will spend money over the course of a Parliament. It would be inaccurate, incomplete and inappropriate to disclose the details requested of the sensitive negotiations between His Majesty’s Treasury and individual Departments—inaccurate, because it would show only part of the picture of a complex decision-making process that takes place between multiple Departments, Ministers, officials and other individuals with varying priorities; incomplete, because such a process has to look across the board at priorities and trade-offs for all Departments to ensure we can deliver for everyone, yet this motion focuses on only one; and inappropriate, because it would be categorically in breach of the long-standing traditions and expectations that confidential and often commercially sensitive information is not disclosed into the public domain and that officials can give full and frank advice to Ministers.
Some Labour Members present have themselves served in government. They know that those in the civil service use every ounce of their professional skill to help them  as Ministers and deliver the objectives of the elected Governments they serve. I have to ask: what would those Members say to those officials about a motion that might result in the making public of the advice of civil servants—people who can never answer back themselves—which they had thought was being given to Ministers in confidence? We know that they would not want that to be done.
It is vital to the conduct of good government and very much in the public interest that officials and Ministers in Departments and across government have a safe space to provide free and frank advice to inform policy and spending decisions. I note that such an exemption is one of the bedrocks of the freedom of information laws that the Labour party introduced. In the case of the spending review and related discussions, anything else would undermine that position and make it harder for Governments—now and in the future—to make the right balance of decisions and to maximise value for money for the taxpayer. That cannot be right, regardless of party, colour or the political events of the day.
I repeat what I said at the start of this speech: nothing is more important than the safety of children and staff in our schools. We are investing billions of pounds rebuilding our schools and providing the funding and support that academy trusts, local authorities, dioceses and schools need to manage the school and college estate effectively. As the Prime Minister and Chancellor have said, we will spend whatever it takes to keep children safe in our schools. After this debate, I will return to that work and to overseeing the operational response that ensures we are keeping children safe and protected and their education ongoing. In the meantime, I urge all colleagues to vote against this motion this evening.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: As I said earlier, a great many people wish to catch my eye, so there will be a time limit, immediately effective, of five minutes on Back-Bench speeches.

Julie Elliott: The debate we are having today is important. It goes to the very heart of what it means to govern and the very purpose of good government, which is to educate and protect our young people properly. The issues of the safety of school buildings and the safety of our children are of paramount importance. I am shocked that even has to be said, but unfortunately what has emerged in the past week has made it apparent that it does. Despite the Secretary of State’s exasperation on this issue, I will not be congratulating her on her handling of it.
The Secretary of State is a member of a party and a Government that have seen school budgets as expendable and a place to save money, whether that is the abolition of Labour’s Building Schools for the Future programme, which I will say more on later, or the Prime Minister deciding in his previous role as Chancellor of the Exchequer that the safety of our people is not a priority for this Government, a view that he has continued into his premiership. I am sure that the Government will be tired of hearing the words of Jonathan Slater, the former permanent secretary to the Department for Education from 2016 to 2020, but he knows what he is talking about. He said that the investigations by civil  servants led to them recommending that 300 to 400 schools needed repairs each year. The Department requested Treasury funding to cover 200, yet the decision made in 2021 was to halve the number of schools repaired from 100 to 50. Who was the Chancellor at that time making those decisions? It was the Prime Minister, who is now presiding over this Conservative Government’s education crisis.
This is not just numbers on a page. Across the country, more than 100 schools are affected. Eleven so far have been reported in the north-east, four of which are closed. They are vital to the future of our children, but those schools are now unsafe. It is shameful. Tellingly, in his response to the former permanent secretary, the Prime Minister said in an interview with the BBC:
“If you look at what we have been doing over the previous decade, that’s completely in line with what we have always done”.
Yes—cutting funding to repair and build schools. I could not agree with the Prime Minister more. It is exactly what Conservative Governments have done over the past decade: ignoring the priorities of the people of Sunderland, the north-east and the country, ignoring the life chances of our young people and ignoring this issue, which has been on the Government’s desk for a few years. We go from crisis to crisis, and it is working people and families who suffer. That is why we need change in this country.
Building Schools for the Future, the programme that the last Labour Government had for replacing all or part of schools that needed to be rebuilt, was abolished by the Conservative-led coalition in 2010. When Labour left power, the economy was growing. It was the policy of austerity by the coalition Government that led us to recession. The Conservatives then were the same as the Conservatives now: a threat to our economy, with a lack of care for our schools.
In Sunderland, in 2010, under BSF wave 2, the council was informed of an indicative budget of £137 million to cover 14 school rebuilds or ICT infrastructure replacements. When the plug was pulled on BSF, that funding was withdrawn. The issues in the schools remained. Today, two of those schools have been identified on the list of the 500 schools in the worst condition in the country. Thirteen years later, action has not been taken. Refurbishment of the others has had to be funded by alternative capital due to the absence of Government support. Six of them are still in need, with no progress since 2010. That is shocking.
The use of RAAC in school buildings, and probably other public buildings as well, is not the responsibility of any one Government, but sorting the problems that has caused is. The Government’s complete lack of prioritising school buildings being fit for purpose or funding education properly has led to the crisis that many of our schools find themselves in today. This is a self-made schools crisis that the Government have brought on themselves. It has forced schools to close and it is the result of years of neglect by Conservatives. The Secretary of State might like to play the victim here, but it is our children who are in danger in this crisis. Someone needs to take responsibility for putting our young people in danger, and so far the Prime Minister is refusing to accept it. The Education Secretary has said that the safety of school buildings is not the responsibility—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Lady has exceeded her five minutes. I call the Chairman of the Education Committee.

Robin Walker: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I am grateful to the Opposition for giving us the opportunity to debate this issue, which is of urgent concern across the country. The Education Committee has requested Ministers to attend a session, and I am glad to report that we will have a Minister attending the Committee the Tuesday after next to give evidence on this important issue.
I want to raise some of the specific concerns we are hearing from school leaders about the way in which the announcements came about and their timing. I think we all agree that it is deeply unfortunate that changes had to be made so late in the school holidays, and before. I understand from conversations that I have had with Ministers today and from public statements that some of the information came to light only very recently. The Select Committee will push for a more detailed timeline on when information came to light and when decisions were made.
I heard many times when I was a Minister the concern of heads and leaders in education about announcements made late in the holidays, just before schools return, and I think we all agree on that. It is deeply unfortunate and troubling in this case. However, I do understand Ministers taking a zero-risk approach on roof collapses and children. From what I have been told, it seems that the estimation of risk—the idea that there were lower-risk and higher-risk forms of RAAC—fundamentally changed. It is important that we get more detail on that so that we can scrutinise the decision making.
On the consequences for schools, we now need to ensure that there is the minimum disruption. I welcome some of the steps set out by the Secretary of State in that regard. I welcome the fact that there are dedicated caseworkers working with those schools where issues have been identified and that more surveys are taking place where there is uncertainty. I would gently say that there is deep concern over the fact that responsible bodies are many and various in this respect, and their capability in understanding their buildings is highly varied. What works for a large multi-academy trust or a local authority managing a number of schools and has a dedicated estates team can be different from a more isolated school and single-academy trust. In particular, small primaries will not necessarily have the expertise to manage these issues. I seek assurance from the Secretary of State that there will be extra support for those more needy schools and that the Department will cover the costs where there is uncertainty of surveying. It is important that we have that assurance in the coming weeks.
I am grateful to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) that I was able to join that Committee’s session on school capital before the summer and to question the permanent secretary at the Department for Education over RAAC. At the time, it seemed that visits relating to RAAC and the gathering of information were being accelerated, but given what we know now, in the light of the risk changing, it is a  great shame that all those visits had not been completed by that time and we did not have a more complete risk picture. An update on the figures given to that Committee would be useful. I look forward to joining the Public Accounts Committee in our scrutiny of this issue when it meets next week.
There are many more questions to ask. Crucially, we need to ensure that lessons are learned from this for the long run and that when we build public buildings, we do so with materials that have a life that will match their use. That means multiple generations, not 30 years or 50 years.

Andrew Western: rose—

Robin Walker: I will give way briefly to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to conclude shortly.

Andrew Western: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Given the concern he is now expressing about how public buildings were built in the past, does he stand by his comments about Labour’s motion on school buildings in May that he described at the time as scaremongering?

Robin Walker: That motion was similar to this one—a Humble Address—which, for the reasons already set out, I do not think is an effective way of going about getting the relevant information. I think that proper parliamentary scrutiny is the way, and I absolutely intend to provide that proper parliamentary scrutiny. There are huge risks in the approach that the Opposition are taking with repeated Humble Addresses, undermining the confidentiality of advice given by officials to Ministers. The idea that a future Labour Government would want to disclose all submissions in spending reviews is, I am afraid, for the birds. We have to be realistic about making sure we have a proper process of scrutiny.
I will hold Ministers to account on this, and as Chair of the Select Committee I have a lot of questions to ask. My members do as well, and I know that a number of them have affected schools in their constituencies. We will want to press Ministers on those issues. I do not think that a Humble Address is the right way to go about it, and that is why I will not support the motion, but I do fundamentally believe that we must ensure there is more investment in replacing school buildings and increased investment in the quality of the school estate. Yes, that is to address issues such as RAAC, but it is also to address issues that have caused real harm, such as asbestos, which we may not have much time to talk about in the debate. It is important to take into account the point made by the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), in that respect as well.
I will not detain the House longer because I will have my opportunity with the Select Committee to ask Ministers much more. This is a hugely important issue and we need all Governments to get it right. I urge Ministers in the UK Government to work with the devolved Administrations to ensure that they can take the proactive measures needed to make schools across the UK utterly safe.

Olivia Blake: I want to start by extending my thoughts to every student, parent, teacher and school staff member who is this week  having their education disrupted, unable to do their job or having to work around the clock to find alternative teaching settings. My first question is: what new evidence has been presented? I do not believe that “evidence” is the right word to be using. Through the Public Accounts Committee, NAO reports and visits, I have been looking at RAAC and, just from having a glance online, it is easy to find multiple reports, including a report from February 2022 by the Institution of Structural Engineers that says that although visual surveys help to assess the condition of panels,
“the nature of any warning signs of sudden failure at the bearings are not fully known…Not all defects are visible…panels which appear to be in a good condition may conceal hidden defects which could present a risk to the integrity of the panels…The corrosion of reinforcement could lead to large pieces of RAAC falling which presents a risk to occupants.”
So I do not believe that there is new evidence; what I believe is that the risk has come to fruition. What we need to understand is why, in this place, we have not taken the risk seriously enough when we have known since 2018 about the risk of sudden failure without any warning signs.
Thankfully, I have been informed by the DFE that it is not aware of any confirmed cases of RAAC in my constituency, but Government actions have undermined my constituents’ confidence in the inspection process. One school, which we are in close communication with, had a second survey carried out this week by the local authority after there was confusion by the Department as to whether the first survey had taken place. RAAC was not identified in either survey. However, some parts of the survey could not be completed due to the possible presence of asbestos, leaving that school in limbo, not knowing if RAAC presents a problem underneath the asbestos.
Parents should not have to worry about the safety of their children when they send them to school, and teachers should not be worried about their workplaces being at risk of collapse, but here we are. I am frankly not that surprised that the Secretary of State said it was “not the job” of the Department for Education to ensure that children are learning in safe school environments. At the start of the year, I raised the case of my constituent Carla, a parent who suffered a serious head injury after a 15-foot piece of board flew off the outside of her child’s school. She suffered significant injuries: she had a black eye and went on to have headaches—she needed to have an MRI scan—and minor scarring, and she still suffers from tinnitus. It could have been a lot worse—someone could have died as a result of that event. As Carla said in her statement to me,
“this…could have been prevented and it was pure luck that no one died”.
That happened when she was going to collect her children. It is exceedingly lucky that the three incidents this summer happened when no one was there to be hurt.
According to data from the Government, from 2017 to 2019, 27 schools in Sheffield had at least one grade C “poor” construction type, and 14 were found to have at least one grade D construction type. I have visited schools and spoken to headteachers, all of whom report a similar story of decade-old buildings going unchecked, repairs to the basics being left undone, and of struggling to manage capital budgets that have been cut over the years to fix things such as boilers. I am really concerned  that, to grapple with this issue, we need to ensure that all the school estate is looked at in the round so that issues such as asbestos do not get forgotten.
While two schools benefited from the Government’s last round of funding, it was barely enough to cover the basic repairs. Many missed out on any funding at all. I have to question why the guidance to schools on this year’s funding round stated that not all RAAC is dangerous. I would like to ask the Secretary of State if she stands by that statement that not all RAAC is dangerous. Why was it not the aim to eradicate RAAC from schools, as stated by the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care?
Finally, I hope that schools will be reimbursed for the costs associated with RAAC litigation and setting up classrooms and temporary accommodation. I want to know what assurance the Secretary of State has received that the 600-odd schools awaiting inspections or that have been inspected is the upper limit of those at risk of RAAC. What assurances does she, and the Department for Education, have about the quality of the surveys being conducted?

Bernard Jenkin: I rise as the Member of Parliament who, unfortunately, probably has more RAAC schools than any other. That does not take into account nearby secondary schools, three of which are identified on the list of cancelled projects in the Building Schools for the Future programme with RAAC in Colchester, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), and which are all likely to be attended by pupils from my constituency.
I heave a deep sigh. Opposition day debates are about blaming the Government—I have been in opposition, and we all know that. They are not about what has fundamentally gone wrong and what lessons there are to be learned. Like the Prime Minister, as he pointed out earlier on the spending review, I can find no reference to RAAC schools in Hansard relating to any statement, urgent question or debate from 2010 when the Building Schools for the Future programme was cancelled, and cancelled it was for very good reasons. Labour’s motion is retrospectively trying to allocate blame in the past, not explaining what a Labour Government would do now or in future.

Meg Hillier: I am tempted to my feet to say that there was a properly planned programme of renewal of schools, and although RAAC in itself was not the only issue being looked at, it was part of that discussion. Just because it is not named does not mean that there was not a plan. There was a plan, and a Conservative Secretary of State axed that on day one of the coalition Government.

Bernard Jenkin: That is of no comfort to my constituents, I am afraid, because nearly all the schools concerned are primary schools, and there were no primary schools in the Building Schools for the Future programme because it was a politically driven programme funded by the discredited public finance initiative, which made it extremely expensive. I do not think we should go back there.
The Labour party does not actually criticise what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decided last week to protect the safety of schoolchildren and teachers. That was the subject of my intervention on the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson). Does she think that the Secretary of State has done the wrong thing? I will give way to her now if she would like to say that.

Bridget Phillipson: I am not Secretary of State.

Bernard Jenkin: No, but the point is that this debate arises because the Secretary of State made a brave and courageous decision to act on the advice she was given. The Opposition has nothing whatever to say about that. She did the right thing. [Interruption.] If the shadow Secretary of State wants to intervene, by all means she may.

Bridget Phillipson: The hon. Gentleman would do well to show a little humility for the mess that his party has created right across our schools.

Bernard Jenkin: There we have it: the hon. Lady will not say that the Secretary of State has done the wrong thing. Let the politics play itself out.
What we have here is a much more fundamental, wider systemic failure in the management of building safety, which has gone on for decades. Dr John Roberts, the former president of the Institution of Structural Engineers, wrote in The Times earlier this week:
“As a chartered structural engineer in active practice from the early 1970s, I never considered using RAAC as it did not “feel’ correct for permanent structures.”
So why was it used? One lesson is that perhaps Ministers should encourage their officials to challenge them more with uncomfortable truths—let us agree that.
The wider question is why such a critical building safety issue was systemically neglected, decade after decade. We should thank the good Lord that none of the ceilings collapsed on a classroom of pupils, or the Government would by now be announcing a full public inquiry rather like the Grenfell inquiry. There the parallels continue, because like cladding, RAAC is a long-persisting and neglected building safety risk, which successive Governments have failed to address.
I and others, including the former fire and housing Minister Nick Raynsford, the former chief investigator of the Air Accident Investigation Branch Dr Keith Conradi, and senior buildings surveyor Kevin Savage, made a submission to the Grenfell inquiry. Our recommendations to help to address the failings are principally twofold and relate to unresolved conflicts of interest in the building safety management regime of buildings, which are not addressed by the Building Safety Act 2022 or the establishment of the building safety body, which is now a statutory function of the Health and Safety Executive. At present, it is the HSE—

Ian Lavery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bernard Jenkin: No, I will press on, if I may. At present, it is the HSE that decides how a building safety failure should be investigated, unless the Government take over with their own inquiry.
There is a need for a truly independent building safety investigation body, equivalent to the accident investigation bodies in aviation, marine, rail and offshore safety. No regulator like the HSE should also investigate safety failures, because it may find itself conflicted if part of the failure arises from a failure of regulation. That is what Lord Cullen found in the Paddington rail crash inquiry and why the Rail Accident Investigation Branch of the Department for Transport was established.

Ian Lavery: Will the hon. Member give way?

Bernard Jenkin: I am sorry; I have no time.
The second conflict that needs to be resolved concerns the role of local authority building control bodies and their private sector counterparts, known as approved inspectors. The Building Safety Act will regulate the private sector approved inspectors but not local authority building control, which was not only responsible for approving the cladding on Grenfell Tower but, I hazard a guess, probably approved the building control on most of the schools built with RAAC.
The main point is that failures such as RAAC and cladding arise because of the failure of the building management safety system, which is endemic to that system. The failures also arise from the failure to find the causes of building safety incidents through a proper independent investigation body that possesses permanent, accumulated expertise that a one-off-public inquiry has to attempt to acquire from scratch.
I hope that amid the politicking, all political parties will recognise that such reforms are necessary in building safety management, or there will be more systemic failures in building safety arising from things such as the wrong cladding and the wrong concrete in the future. I have 15 seconds, if the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) would like to intervene.

Ian Lavery: Very briefly, does the hon. Member think that the Government’s 54% reduction in the HSE budget since 2010 is helpful in this situation?

Bernard Jenkin: I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would raise a point relevant to my speech. There has been enough politicking about this issue. I am making more serious comments about the building safety management system of this whole country, which affects a whole lot of other public buildings as well.

Dan Carden: I fear I will upset the Chair of the Liaison Committee, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), because I will use my speech to blame the Government. The Secretary of State must be the only scouser I have ever met who thinks Liverpool is left better after the last 13 years of Conservative government. It has been evident to my constituents for many years that our public services are crumbling under the Tory Government. Never has that phrase has rarely been so literal as it has become in the last few days.
Just days before schools were set to reopen after the summer holidays, our education system was thrown into chaos by the crisis of unsafe concrete in our public buildings. More than 100 schools have already been forced to close due to the risk of collapse. The Prime Minister himself suggested that more than 1,000 could  be affected. This scandal goes to the heart of the incompetence and short termism that has characterised the last 13 years.
The emerging timeline of events is truly staggering: upon taking office in 2010, the Tory-Liberal Democrat Government scrapped Labour’s school rebuilding programme, which the then Education Secretary called a waste of money. Department for Education officials said that 300 to 400 schools needed to be rebuilt every single year because of degrading concrete, but the Government said they would only pay for 100. In 2018, the Department was informed of the sudden collapse of a roof on a school in Kent. Since summer 2021, its own risk register recognised a critical and very likely risk that building collapse could cause death or injury. Officials in the Department again asked for funding for school rebuilds to be doubled. Instead, the then Chancellor, now Prime Minister, recklessly cut school funding in half. Now our schools, the bedrock of our society, are literally potentially collapsing around us and the Tory Government have the audacity to expect gratitude.
Today, Labour will force a binding vote to reveal what the Prime Minister knew about the risks posed by reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete before slashing the school rebuilding programme. Conservative MPs have a choice: stand with those of us on the Labour Benches and let parents know the truth, or stand with the Government and cover up what was known and the scale of the crisis.
The crumbling concrete in schools, hospitals and courts is a fitting metaphor for Tory rule and the years of neglect of public services across the country. After 13 years of a Conservative-led Government, Britain is falling apart. Our NHS is on the verge of collapse, our railways are in chaos, raw sewage is being pumped into our rivers, and housing is unaffordable and insecure. My constituents say, election after election, that enough is enough. I hope the rest of the country will follow suit shortly. We need nothing short of a national renewal, and Labour stands ready to take office and begin the difficult task of rebuilding Britain for the better.

Priti Patel: Unlike some, I welcome the opportunity to follow up Monday’s statement from the Government Front Bench and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to discuss RAAC. More than 50 schools in Essex are affected, and I begin by paying tribute to Essex County Council and its leadership: Councillor Kevin Bentley, Councillor Tony Ball and officers led by Claire Kershaw. They have been robust in their leadership and are doing so much to help parents, teachers and pupils. I should add that our council is working not just with local authority schools, but academy trusts too. They are not saying that it will help one school over another. They are stepping up to deal with the challenge and we are grateful to them.
I commend them for convening Essex MPs. Madam Deputy Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dame Eleanor Laing), has also raised concerns on behalf of her schools directly with the county council, as has the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon). He has a school that is affected: Sir Frederick Gibberd  College. We are working together because we believe in finding solutions. We are not interested in politicking at this time.
I want to thank parents and pupils in Essex for understanding the difficulties we are all facing. They have been inconvenienced by the RAAC issue, but it is important to point out that, certainly in my constituency, community groups and businesses have come forward to help find alternative provision and sites. I thank them too. The focus right now has to be on finding solutions to the immediate challenges we are facing, minimising disruption to learning, and ensuring affected pupils, parents and schools are supported. I do not think they are interested in political point scoring; they want answers and solutions.
I will use my time to put some questions to those on the Government Front Bench, and I know they will come back on them in due course. I welcome from the Minister the details of the steps that have been taken across Government to mobilise the strong operational—that is the whole point—delivery response we want. The Prime Minister gave an assurance earlier that all funding necessary will be provided, including capital and revenue. That is important because our county council is already liaising, co-ordinating and covering costs in the interim. It will be sending in an invoice, and we hope it will come to the Department for Education. The council will, of course, need to know when those costs will be met and who in the Department it will be liaising with, so I would like some assurances on that.
We have concerns about the impact on learning. I have raised—I raised it on Monday in this House—concerns around children with special needs, disabilities and vulnerabilities, and the impact of missed learning on parents, with difficulties around childcare. We are looking at finding practical solutions, so I would welcome any update from the Front Bench on that, too. We will need to think about how the impact, particularly on exams and Ofsted inspections, will be managed. It is inevitable, post pandemic, that we will see more Ofsted inspections locally—I know that from my own schools—but we have key year groups in exam years and we have to support them.
On temporary measures being put in place, all Members will be concerned about the pressures on the market and the demands for portable classrooms and facilities. The Secretary of State and I have already spoken about those demands and the potentially increased costs, so it would be helpful for the Government to give a supply update. Alongside the pressure of supply for temporary classrooms is the impact on the construction sector and extra insurance costs and premiums. Schools and the local authority will be looking at those issues and quality control measures.
This has already been touched on in the debate and over the past few days, but issues other than RAAC are affecting our schools, and I have raised them in the past, such as damp and old buildings that are worn out and need updating and replacing. Perhaps not today—this is an Opposition day debate—but we will need an update on what this all means for us going forward.
Finally, this is a difficult and challenging time for teachers, schools, pupils and parents. On behalf of all of those affected in the Witham constituency, Essex and the whole country, today is a chance for the Government  to give an assurance that they will do everything possible to ensure that face-to-face education can come back for affected schools and that we are doing everything we can to support them.

Kate Osborne: Earlier today the Prime Minister said that he had acted decisively on RAAC. Earlier this week, the Secretary of State said that schools in which critical RAAC had been identified had been fixed immediately. As we have come to expect from this Government, neither of those statements are true. Critical RAAC was identified at St James Catholic Primary School in my constituency in June and action was not taken immediately—or, indeed, at all. It was told that it could open in part and then, as with many other schools, it received just 24 hours’ notice that it had to close in full.
Schools would not be in this position had the Government acted decisively. They have known RAAC was unsafe since 2018, and they could and should have taken action much earlier. Decades of cutting money from vital public services has literally left buildings crumbling and left our kids at risk, sitting in unsafe buildings. The Government’s decisions have left all our public services on their knees, not just our schools but crumbling hospitals and courts. It is not just the buildings: whole services have collapsed.
Staff, too, are being failed: workers in schools, the NHS and local government have all been left propping up services. Huge increases in workload, coupled with real-terms pay cuts, have also left public sector workers at the point of collapse. We know that the Government’s rhetoric on levelling up is yet more untruths and we know why: the Prime Minister boasting about moving money from poorer areas to richer areas, cutting tax on champagne, spending millions on new offices while our northern communities like Hebburn, Boldon, Jarrow and Gateshead in my constituency are left behind. It does not surprise me to see so many of my colleagues from the north-east present today.
Communities are neglected and left paying the price of Tory chaos while Ministers, their spouses and their cronies get richer. Conservative Members attempt to gaslight the country into believing that everything is okay, but despite their panto screaming during Prime Minister’s questions, they know the reality: that 13 years of Tory Governments has ruined our country. From the cost of living crisis and food and energy bills to our waters, schools and NHS, every part of our country is falling down.
The Secretary of State likes to keep saying that decisions were “nothing to do with me”, but the fact that our schools and the country are falling apart is absolutely down to the Government. At this moment, thousands of parents are petrified because of this crisis, while we have a Prime Minister and a Secretary of State with feet of clay. They need to accept that their time is up, and move aside so that the Labour party can start clearing up the mess that they have caused.

Laura Farris: No Member of Parliament would dispute the crucial importance of safe and secure school premises—or indeed all vital premises, whether those are hospitals, courts or prisons—or   the fact that they require adequate Government investment. Implicit in the Opposition motion, however, is an allegation that the Conservative Government have failed on education, and failed children more broadly, and that is a charge that I do not accept—nor, in fact, do some of Labour’s most revered figures. Philip Collins, writing in The Times on Monday, said:
“The core case for the government would be in education. Its emphasis on academic knowledge has been salutary.”
He goes on to say that the Conservative
“free school programme created productive experiments in school improvement.”
I can attest to that, because I sent my kids to a free school. He continues:
“The stress on phonics to teach reading”—
introduced in 2010 by the Schools Minister—
“has worked. In 2012, 58 per cent of Year 1 pupils achieved the expected reading level. By 2019, that had risen to 82 per cent.”
Members must be familiar with this by now, but in this year’s progress in international reading literacy study, an international five-yearly assessment, the UK ranked fourth globally and first in the western world for child literacy. The proportion of schools rated good or outstanding by Ofsted has increased from two thirds in 2010, when we came to office, to 90% today. Time is limited, so I will not go on, but the fact is that the quality of children’s education has never been higher because of the reforms introduced by this Conservative Government.
Let me now deal with the issue of buildings. There were good aspects of Labour’s Building Schools for the Future programme. St Bartholomew’s School in my constituency was rebuilt as a result of that programme, and I give Labour credit for that. However, the private finance initiative programme was badly lacking. The National Audit Office noted that the building was a third more expensive than it needed to be, and that is not in dispute. The independent James review said in 2011 that Building Schools for the Future had been “time consuming” and
“had an approach that, with hindsight, was expensive and did not get to schools with the greatest need fast enough.”
Given the dire state of the public finances when we came to office, it was right to shelve that scheme. I know that that the note left by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), does the rounds on social media, and Labour Members will groan, but it still blows my mind that a senior member of the last Labour Government thought it was a joke that they had run down the public finances in that way. To them, the interests of the public were somehow derisory, and secondary to the primary objective of thumbing their nose at the incoming Conservative Government who had just won a general election.
I entirely disagree with the claim that the Conservatives have put nothing in place of that programme. In the three and a half years in which I have represented my constituency, a brilliant new primary school, Highwood Copse, has opened in the south of Newbury. Two more, Francis Baily Primary and Whiteland Park Primary in Thatcham, have received significant funds for badly needed overhauls. Three secondary schools, Trinity, Park House and Kennet, have also received significant funds; in fact, only one secondary school has not received money. John O’Gaunt, a secondary in Hungerford, was  one of the 239 schools selected for funding from the Government’s £1.8 billion school rebuilding programme in September. I have watched school premises in my constituency improve significantly, so I know that the money is there.
Finally, I want to align myself with what was said by the Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). I know from working closely with my local headteachers that they need information and transparency. I respect the Secretary of State for taking a difficult decision in the light of information that became available, but I would also say that the information published today reveals a more positive picture than was first feared. More than 100 of the 156 schools affected—less than 0.5% of the total of 22,000 in the country—are already back in operation, and running face-to-face teaching. Only four are currently online. I do not like online teaching; it did not work very well for my kids. I understand from what the Prime Minister said that we are talking about a matter of days or weeks, so I ask the Secretary of State for transparency and a clear timeline for those schools.
The shadow Secretary of State for Education said that the symbol of 13 years of a Conservative Government was children cowering under concrete blocks, but the enduring image of 13 years of a Conservative Government is higher levels of academic excellence than have ever been achieved by any Government, and that would be impossible under anyone other than the Conservatives.

Andrew Western: In the week of the first anniversary of a prime ministerial reign that was outlasted by a lettuce, we again see laid bare the staggering incompetence of this Conservative Government. Mortgage holders, private renters and those looking to get on the housing ladder bore the brunt of that debacle; this time it is children, parents and teachers who are paying the price for the Government’s failures—and failures do not get much bigger than this.
The Prime Minister’s decision to slash the number of schools to be rebuilt, reportedly against the advice of officials, has left classrooms up and down the country unsafe to learn in. Taxes on many parents have never been higher; it is not unreasonable for them to expect that their children could go to a school that was not at risk of crumbling around them, yet the Conservatives seemingly disagree with that not especially lofty aspiration. They want my constituents to thank them for doing a good job as vital public services are quite literally run into the ground.
My experience of the Conservatives’ school shambles came at quarter to 5 last Friday, when I received a letter from the same Secretary of State who wants to be patted on the back for doing a good job because she knows where the affected settings are. In that letter, she advised me that an education provider with many sites across Greater Manchester had a confirmed case of RAAC at its site in my constituency. Assuming an error, as I was previously unaware of any issues, I called the MPs’ hotline to confirm whether the affected site was indeed in my constituency. The adviser was adamant that it was, despite my protestations. It was only when I spoke to the principal of the site in my constituency that it became clear that the site was completely fine, and that there was no RAAC involved at all.
The Secretary of State is nodding. The site referred to was 15 miles away in another constituency and was a different part of the same group. For this to happen once would be bad, but for it to happen twice in the same letter—this is a comedy of errors from a Secretary of State who supposedly knows where the affected buildings are—is deeply concerning. Of the four schools that I was notified were at risk from RAAC, one is not even in my constituency. This is just a glimpse of the chaos and incompetence that has characterised the past week. If the Secretary of State is leaning into her knowledge of where the problems are as an example of her efficacy, I suggest that she rethinks her strategy.
Countless schools are now in limbo, with headteachers being told that they have suspected issues with RAAC but will have to wait weeks for a survey to confirm it. What a horrible position to put school leaders in. Should they tell parents about suspected RAAC issues and risk causing unnecessary panic, or should they say nothing to parents about their children learning in a potentially unsafe building? Had the Conservatives not cancelled Labour’s school rebuilding programme in 2010, every secondary school building in England would have been significantly refurbished or rebuilt by 2020. Instead, the defining image of this Government will be children sitting in unfit buildings, worried that the ceilings could literally crumble above them.
If the Conservatives want any credibility on education, they should vote with Labour today to release the documents showing what the Prime Minister knew, when he was Chancellor, about the risks posed to children from RAAC before he slashed school rebuilding programmes in 2021, and when he knew it. For Members who think that parents, children and school staff deserve answers on who is responsible for this mess and have a right to know the true scale of this crisis, there is only one way to vote today, and that is to support this motion.

Shaun Bailey: It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. I have a school in my constituency that is affected by RAAC, Wood Green Academy, and I pay tribute to James Topham, its headteacher, who has done a fantastic job of swinging into action by staggering start times and ensuring, as best as possible, that education can continue. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Schools for working with me over the weekend and in the early part of this week to address that situation. I know his officials have followed the issue closely and will continue to do so.
The frustration for Wood Green Academy is that its two affected blocks house specialist classrooms for design and technology, and for other important, specialist parts of the curriculum that we need to support, particularly in my constituency, to ensure the participation of students. I pay tribute to the school for its work to minimise disruption.
In listening to this debate, it has been nice to hear that the Opposition finally remember where Wednesbury is. For the benefit of Labour Members, it is about 12 miles from Birmingham, which is the council they bankrupted  yesterday. Wednesbury is in Sandwell, where the council was put into special measures because there was a lack of transparency and borderline corruption in the way that Labour was running the authority. Wednesbury is also about 40 miles from Stoke-on-Trent, which has just said it has gone bankrupt, too. I will not take lectures from Labour Members on chaos.
We need to look at the bigger picture. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) gave a fantastic speech, and I pay tribute to the measured way in which she tackled this issue. The issue of funding has been at the heart of some of the Opposition’s lines today, but the shame and scandal of Labour’s PFI programme continues to haunt my community. I hope that when the Minister sums up, he will confirm that if schools with PFI contracts are impacted in any way by the need for emergency remediation, we will consider ways to resolve the issues caused.
One of my headteachers has had to choose between buying books and paying £20,000 to get the grass cut—that is the legacy of Labour’s school building programme, and this is in the most deprived community possible. Labour Members sit there and they gaslight, with this arrogance that winds up the communities I represent. All they have done is turn their back on those communities; it is as simple as that. Every single Labour Member should apologise for the legacy of PFI, because it is scandalous—absolutely scandalous. Once again, it is my constituents who will have to suffer for half a century because them lot decided to play fast and loose, however they wished. It is absolutely outrageous.
We have to look to the future, and the truth is that Government funding, particularly in my constituency, has been quite generous. Last year, there were announcements of condition improvement funding for Silvertrees Academy and Ocker Hill Academy, both in Tipton, in some of the most deprived and needy parts of my community. We have also seen a 28% cash increase in the basic needs allowance for 2022-23. To say that there has been a slashing of funding and capital investment is a narrative that my communities simply do not recognise.
The technical points of the motion are important. As I said when we debated a similar motion earlier this year, the House has mechanisms that we can use to allow for the scrutiny that the motion suggests. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), the Chair of the Select Committee, is no longer here, but he touched on that. As the Secretary of State said, and as former Ministers know, although I am unfortunately not one of them, it is important that Ministers be able to take discreet advice from their officials, so that they can make the right decisions without fear that officials who cannot stand up for themselves will be put at the forefront of scrutiny. I cannot support the motion, because it undermines a process that Labour Members used themselves when they were in government—please help us if that ever happens again. I find it hilarious that they think that the motion proposes a viable process that would not set a precedent in any way, shape or form.
Let me get to the heart of this: we need transparency. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Schools for the work that he has done. We clearly have to look at the matter from an operational point of view, and at the core of it is making sure that children get the education they deserve.

Ruth Cadbury: I support the motion, which stands in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) and the Leader of the Opposition. It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey). May I just correct him by saying that PFI was started by the Conservative Major Government?
As pupils, parents and teachers were preparing for a new school term last week and this week, they were met with horrifying news that threw into question whether their schools were safe to go into. Headteachers were left scrambling around over the weekend to arrange new sites and portacabins, or, worse, telling parents that their children were not to come into school this week.

Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Ruth Cadbury: I will not give way, as I know there are quite a few people to speak.
Schools have been rushing to book surveys to find out whether they have RAAC. This is a week when parents should be filled with joy and excitement about a new year, taking photos of their year 7s in their new uniform, not worrying about how to find holiday childcare for another week—or two weeks, who knows?
This situation did not happen by accident. Conservative Members like to pretend that the past 13 years were a fever dream, but this crisis stems primarily from the decision made in 2010 to cancel Labour’s Building Schools for the Future scheme. It was a massive and historic programme of investment. That investment would have benefited schools in my constituency and across England: schools that had RAAC; schools that have asbestos; and schools that had had little serious investment over the previous 18 years of Conservative government prior to 1997. In 2010, the Conservatives cancelled that programme because they do not know the value of investment or the role of public services, and did not care about the condition of our schools. The Prime Minister is so out of touch with the country that he struggles to use a contactless card machine. What hope do we have that he might really understand UK state schools?
When the Prime Minister was Chancellor, he made the decision to block extra funding to the Department for Education—funding that would have gone towards fixing, repairing and improving our school estate. One of the most senior civil servants in that Department even admitted that funding for school buildings was blocked because the Government wanted to push more towards free schools. For example, that involved paying £11.25 million of taxpayers’ money—way overpaying—for a former sports facility on old metropolitan open land in Osterley. Once again, the Conservative ideology trumps value for money and public safety.
We live in a country where ambulances do not turn up, the police have to be ordered to investigate crime and school buildings now face collapse. Thirteen long years of Conservative rule have utterly ruined our public services. There is no more fitting legacy than the fact that the public realm is literally collapsing in front of us. The letter I received from the DFE on Monday says that
“there is nothing more important than the safety of children, young people, and staff in education settings”.
Even if that were the view of officials within the DFE, it clearly was not the view of the Prime Minister, who was Chancellor in 2021 when the Government knew about this problem—indeed, there had been warnings long before that. If the Government really thought that there was nothing more important than the safety of children, young people and staff in education settings, why are schools collapsing and why are children being told to say at home this week?
Hon. Members have a choice today: they can vote with Labour and give parents the right to know who is responsible for this mess, or they can vote to conceal the true scale of the crisis and the Prime Minister’s failure to keep our children safe.

Ben Bradley: I am grateful for the chance to speak in the debate, following the statement made by the Secretary of State for Education earlier this week.
I draw the attention of colleagues on both sides of the House to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris)—this is bad timing on my part, as she is just leaving the Chamber—about the legacy of this Government on education, which is something to be proud of. I will not use my time to repeat her points, but when I post on my Facebook page later, I will add a link to her speech so that all my constituents can see it too.
In 13 years of Conservative government, standards have gone through the roof. My right hon. Friend the Schools Minister and others in government should be proud of that and trumpet it at every possible opportunity. I can point to recent examples in my own constituency, including Queen Elizabeth’s Academy, Oak Tree Primary School and Vision West Nottinghamshire College, that have gone through difficult times in terms of quality but are rated “good”, some for the first time ever, because of incredible amounts of local work and a drive for higher standards and better opportunities for kids in my constituency from this Government. No one should let anybody tell them that the Conservatives do not care about kids, education or schools because that is demonstrably nonsense.
In the debate, Labour Members have been asking for information that they would never release themselves. If the shoe were on the other foot, they would never allow that to happen and they would vote against such a motion. They know perfectly well that there has to be the ability to have a confidential conversation behind the scenes when budgets are set, because otherwise no ideas would ever come forward and no plans would ever be made. The Government are releasing information about schools in England, which is being published today, but that cannot be done for schools in Wales because Labour-run Wales does not have that information, as work to mitigate the challenge has not been done.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had very little choice last week when she made the decision. There is no choice about when expert advice comes forward and changes the balance of risk. She had to take a risk averse, safety-first approach. That was absolutely the right thing to do. The immediate response has been very good. I felt her frustration yesterday, because this work has not just happened in the last week but has been going on for years. The Department for Education  took a decision, identified the schools, supported those schools and committed the funds to tackle the problem. That happened fairly quickly and the outcome, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury said, is that fewer schools are affected than was originally thought last week. That is something of a success.
The history of the issue goes back several years. The idea raised by Opposition Members that the problem emerged only last week or in 2022 is nonsense. I am the leader of a county council, the responsible body for maintained schools in my constituency and around it. We have been doing survey work with the DFE since 2018-19, so it has been ongoing for a long time. There have been local and national condition improvement funds to work on the quality of those schools in that time. As a result, when the announcement was made last week, we had very good data and information to be able to tackle the situation quickly.
The sum total of affected schools in Nottinghamshire—there are no affected schools in my constituency—is one primary school being delayed in its return by a couple of days. That is not an accident; it has happened because a lot of work, funding and support has gone in over a long period of time. In places where that has not happened, the DFE stepped in directly in 2022, which was a good and responsible thing to do. I pay tribute to the work of colleagues in the Department and in my own council who have managed this well over a number of years. We have a local £9-million school condition improvement fund of our own and four schools in my constituency are being rebuilt. These are all good news stories for schools, not just because of the quality of education I have described, but for school buildings in my constituency and around it.
The level of building—500 new schools over a decade—is consistent with any programme in recent decades. The numbers under the programme that Labour Members are lauding ended up being something like 25 or 30 fewer than that. They never reached the target they said they were going to reach—shock, horror! This problem was an issue back in 1997 to 2010, but it was never mentioned at any point. They tell us now that if they had been in government, they would have used their psychic powers to figure out the problem before the experts did and would have tackled it well in advance. Of course we know that that is not true or possible.
The biggest concern I want to raise is about reassurance. I have heard three times from Opposition Members that schools are literally falling down around our children—name one, because they are not. Each time I hear that, I am reminded that I will be getting emails from my constituents saying, “I am worried about my kids’ safety in their school,” when no schools are affected in my constituency, they do not need to worry and those kids have all gone back—every single one—safely to school this week. That fearmongering and rhetoric is irresponsible. Parents will be unnecessarily worried about the condition of their kids’ school when I know, for all the reasons I have described, that we have managed this well over a number of years and it is not an issue in my constituency. I urge hon. Members to think long and hard before they put that unnecessary stress on parents who are already finding this difficult.

Mary Foy: I thank those on the Opposition Front Bench for selecting this urgent issue today and my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) for her opening remarks.
Today’s debate will mean a lot to my constituents, many of whom have been thrown into disarray because of this avoidable scandal. How Tory Back Benchers vote this afternoon will show those constituents just whose side they are on: the side of parents, teachers and pupils, or the side of this rotten Government who need to go.
My constituents want two things today. First, they want Ministers to know exactly what they had to go through when St Leonard’s Catholic School in my constituency was ordered to close last Friday. Secondly, they want to know what the Government are doing for them and their children, so that this crisis does not become a disaster.
I mentioned in my contribution on Monday that the closure of St Leonard’s caused real difficulty and distress for my constituents. They understand that this is not the fault of St Leonard’s, which, by the way, had lobbied the Schools Minister in the coalition years about its crumbling school, but they do know that this is the fault of Conservative Ministers past and present.
On Friday, at the last minute, childcare and work had to be rearranged, all against a backdrop of austerity and the cost of living crisis. One of my constituents could not afford to take time off work, so they had to ask their parent to take time off to look after their child. Parents have told me that this has caused their children anxiety and frustration—children who have already been through so much because of the disruption of the pandemic. Parents have also written to me to express how horrified they are that they have been sending their children to an unsafe school. They are perplexed about why the school could not have closed earlier—after all, RAAC was identified in the spring and we have had an entire school holiday to repair this mess.
Parents and children alike are extremely concerned by the effect that this situation may have on GCSE results. There is already a grade attainment gap due to inequality between the north-east and the rest of the country—something my constituents know all too well—which further compounds their anxiety.
I should say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I have heard more practical ideas from my constituents than I have from Ministers or the local council, which has been absent throughout this crisis. Even in a time of great stress, parents are thinking of ways to help their children and their children’s friends, as is Durham University, which has been of great assistance to my office since last Friday. The same cannot be said of Ministers, who are more concerned with inter-departmental arguments between No. 10 and the Department for Education.
The Education Secretary told me on Monday that there would be financial support for St Leonard’s, but will support also be offered to the parents and pupils who have been affected? Will additional travel costs be reimbursed? Will the Department meet extra staff costs? Will the Department meet all the capital costs, or will  St Leonard’s be expected to pay? And will the Education Secretary return to the House next week to outline a support package? I am mainly thinking of those parents of children with special educational needs, as well as children on free school meals. A teacher at St Leonard’s has told me that they are most concerned about the impact on those children from vulnerable backgrounds, for whom school is a safe haven.
Conservative Members must do the right and honourable thing this afternoon and join us in the Lobby. If they do not, they will have no right to ever say that they are on the side of hard-working parents, pupils or teachers.

Simon Baynes: The education of the next generation is an issue that is close to my heart, as is the case for Members across the House—on that we can agree this afternoon. It is our duty to ensure that children can study with minimal disruptions. I strongly support the measures that the Secretary of State has taken to address the issue of RAAC in schools throughout England.
I wish to highlight three of those measures. The first is that the Government have acted quickly to issue guidance to schools on how to manage the risks associated with RAAC, which is in sharp contrast to what the Welsh Government have done. In 2018, the Department for Education published guidance for schools about the need to have adequate contingencies if they had RAAC. It initiated its survey of the schools estate for RAAC in March 2022 and updated the guidance in light of new evidence last month.
The second point that I will make is that the UK Government will ensure that schools have the funding that they need so that teachers can focus on getting students back to school, and so that students are safe. The Chancellor and the Prime Minister have confirmed that the Government will spend what it takes to address the problem as quickly as possible so that children can go to school safely.
The third point that I will emphasise is that the Government are ensuring that the majority of schools affected by RAAC remain open for face-to-face teaching, minimising the disruption to students’ learning. By supporting schools to put mitigations in place, the Government have helped the majority of schools to remain open for face-to-face teaching, ensuring that disruption to pupils in affected schools is minimised. In contrast, the Opposition are playing politics and refusing to take responsibility for their failings in Government. They failed to address issues with RAAC, despite warnings about the problems in 1997, 1999, 2002 and 2007 from the Building Research Establishment and the Standing Committee on Structural Safety.
Finally, as a Welsh MP for Clwyd South I make no apology for commenting on the situation in Wales. I note that no Welsh MPs have taken part in the debate or been present on the Opposition Benches this afternoon. The Welsh Government have taken their eye off the ball, relying on councils to do the work that the UK Conservative Government are leading on in England. As I said in my earlier intervention, the Welsh Government ordered surveys only in May 2023; the UK Government started engaging with schools in March 2022. Where is the accountability? Where is the responsibility?
That lack of preparation work means that school surveys in Wales will not be completed until December this year. Education has been devolved to Wales for 26 years. Labour is in charge of schools in Wales, so building safety is its responsibility. The Welsh Government receive £1.20 for every £1 spent on education in England, but in 2019 the independent Auditor General for Wales discovered that only £1.05 reaches the classroom. Labour prioritises its vanity projects, such as a new blanket 20 mph speed limit, costing the economy £4.5 billion, and introducing legislation for more politicians in the Welsh Parliament, but it has cut the education budget in Wales in real terms this year. The Welsh Government’s approach to RAAC shows a woeful lack of responsibility by the Labour party in Wales, of which they and those on the Opposition Benches should be deeply ashamed.

Rosie Winterton: A couple of people have dropped out, which gives us a little more time. I will remove the time limit for a bit and see how we go. I may have to reinstate it, but a little more time is available.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: While it is welcome that it has been reported today that RAAC has not been found in any of our schools in Salford, I must stress that the fact that the Government were unable to produce that information until today, having known about the risk since at least 2018, when a school roof in Kent collapsed, is completely unacceptable.

Yasmin Qureshi: I am glad that Salford has no schools with RAAC problems, but in Bolton we found out on Friday that St William of York, St Andrew’s Church of England and St Bernard’s were affected. St Bernard’s was not even on any list, and St Gregory’s is still awaiting the result. Do you agree that the Government should publish the full list, not the half-baked one that they published this afternoon?

Rosie Winterton: Order. The hon. Lady knows that she must not address her hon. Friend as “you”; otherwise, she is addressing me.

Yasmin Qureshi: I apologise.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: I completely agree with my constituency neighbour. I stress that not just schools are affected by this crisis; it extends to public buildings, and concerns have been raised in recent days by the building industry that certain residential properties, particularly social housing, could also be affected. On hospitals alone, a report by the National Audit Office in July this year said that structurally unsound RAAC was present in at least 41 hospitals. The Turnberg building at Salford Royal Hospital is reported to be one of them.
Despite this clear national building safety crisis, there is no detail from Government on what action will or will not be taken, no detail on the urgent funding and support that will be provided to remediate and no assurances so far that the costs will not come out of existing school, NHS and local authority budgets. Worse still, there appears to be an emerging message today from Government that this crisis is stand-alone—that it is simply a sad indictment of less-regulated old building practices that are now outdated.
That is not the true story. The real culprit here is the unashamed pursuit of austerity by this Government and the coalition before them. Let us not forget that, to start with, the coalition ripped up Labour’s Building Schools for the Future programme in 2010 and never adequately replaced it. Worse still, between 2009 and 2022 the Department for Education’s capital spending declined by 37% in cash terms and 50% in real terms. That is in addition to NHS and local authority budgets being slashed on a similar basis, with the effect that most ongoing public sector estate upgrade programmes were torn to shreds.
Sadly, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies states:
“The current crisis illustrates just how costly failing to keep on top of necessary investment in buildings and infrastructure can be.”
How much money was actually required, had the Government taken action on schools when it should have? The National Audit Office in 2017 published a report on capital spending that stated that it would cost £6.7 billion to return all schools to a satisfactory or better condition. That report was also clear that there is a significant risk of major costs arising from deterioration of the estate.
Action was needed in 2017, but in November 2020, in the Government spending review, they allocated only £3.1 billion—less than half the amount of investment required just to keep buildings ticking over safely. Then the story becomes even more absurd: in March 2022, realising that there was a problem, the Department for Education sent a questionnaire to all schools asking if they had RAAC on their estate, but later told schools not to spend any money on surveys to find out.
Even after that, in May 2022, when Government documents were leaked to The Observer showing that school buildings could be a risk to life—causing great alarm in schools up and down the country—half the schools then applied for funding to remediate and did not get a penny from Government. In June 2023, the National Audit Office said the condition of school buildings was “declining” and warned that 700,000 pupils were learning in buildings that it described as unsafe or ageing. It stated clearly that the DfE had received significantly less funding for school buildings than it estimated it needed between 2016 and 2023.
The Government knew that this crisis was coming, and the causes of this crisis were very deliberate. Austerity is, was and always will be a political choice, but it is both immoral and economically illiterate. The only political choice the Government should have made was to ensure the safety of their people. Sadly, if they had made that choice, the cost borne then would be a mere shadow of the cost required today.

Rosie Winterton: To assist with guidance, I will put a seven-minute limit on.

Aaron Bell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), my fellow Science, Innovation and Technology Committee member.
We began this debate with a bit of a lecture from the shadow Education Secretary, who presumed to tell us what the nature of government was. Government involves  difficult decisions; it involves responding to events, but it also involves living within our means and prioritising the safety of the people we represent—in particular that of children. As other hon. Members have said in this debate, I honestly believe the Education Secretary had no other option: when the risk assessment changed, as a result of things that happened just in August, she took a rapid, proactive and very precautionary decision to make sure we addressed it in the most appropriate way possible. She demonstrated the wisdom of that approach in the responses she gave Members on both sides of the House during her statement on Monday.
When Labour is in charge of things, it does not always take that approach; it fails on all the things that I have mentioned. Labour fails in places such as Birmingham, where it has run out of money, and in neighbouring Stoke-on-Trent, which looks like it will go bankrupt as well; it has clobbered people with taxes in places such as London, where the Mayor and his ultra low emission zone are epically unpopular with voters and the hard-working families who have to pay that cost; and, of course, on this particular issue, Labour fails in Wales, where it has had its head in the sand.
I have looked at the BBC list of all the affected schools in England, Scotland and Wales. For Wales, there is a link to one article that says that only two affected schools were found, both in Anglesey. Well, in a construction scandal that has affected countries across the world, with all the buildings built with RAAC over the years, if there are only two in the whole of the Welsh education establishment, I will eat my hat. Two have been found in Anglesey, but Labour needs to get its fingers out and start finding the others as soon as possible.
Instead, the shadow Education Secretary indulges in the luxury of opposition. What have Labour Members focused on since this story broke? They want the list. Why do they want the list? They want to scaremonger and whip up a media storm about it. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth), who is no longer in her place, mentioned on Monday a special school in her constituency. The name of that school got into the press—presumably the local press—and the school was then mobbed by national media. That is presumably what Labour wants to happen in all cases.
One school in my constituency, Sir Thomas Boughey Academy in Halmer End, is on the list. That school is very instructive on why we are right to have taken the course that we have, because it has been proactive and, working with the dedicated caseworker provided by the DfE, has explained things to parents. In fact, the school has already taken much of the required action to repair the hall, classrooms and roof constructions in which it found RAAC. There is currently a small amount left in a boiler room, but it is being removed and the room has been made safe. That school is able to be open today with face-to-face teaching in all classrooms and no restrictions. Only that boiler room still has RAAC because the school took proactive action, and that shows the value of the work that the English Government—the UK Government—have been doing in getting that surveying ahead of time. That is not happening in Wales because Labour has not done the work.
We are proud of our record on education, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) spoke powerfully about that. Outputs matter most, but  on inputs, we are providing record funding in real terms, with a schools budget of nearly £60 billion next year. We have record numbers of teachers—468,000—and a teacher’s starting salary is now an extremely competitive £30,000, delivering on a pledge that the Government made. On top of that, we are spending £181 million on initial teacher training incentives to get people into the areas in which we need to see more teachers, including maths and science. We on the Science and Technology Committee conducted an inquiry on diversity in science, technology, engineering and maths, and we considered the need for better teaching in science, particularly for girls. We are delivering that through teacher training incentives.
Outputs are more important, and our record is absolutely outstanding: 88% of schools are rated “good” or “outstanding” compared with the 68% figure that we inherited from the Labour party in 2010. An English 18-year-old from a disadvantaged background is now 86% more likely to go to university than they were a decade ago—I represent a number of disadvantaged communities—and I am proud of that record. Many of those people go to Keele University in my constituency.
Phonics is the absolute epic success story of this period of Conservative Government. I pay tribute to the Minister for Schools, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb), who is sat on the Treasury Bench. Our primary children are now the best in the western world at reading. We have rocketed up the league tables not just for reading and literacy, but for maths. We are proud of our record here in England. Sadly, the Scottish education system is not as good. By delivering what we have through phonics, we are giving children the best possible tools to succeed in a world in which they will need more and more of those tools.
In all honesty, given the amount of money that was available to Labour during the boom times for the City in the 1997-2010 Parliaments—of course, it then famously ran out—it should be ashamed of its record. Not only did Labour not deliver the Building Schools for the Future programme, about which Labour Members have spoken many times today, but it was a costly and slow scheme that did not deliver what it promised. More than that, Labour failed on outputs. It left children unable to read or write. We have put that right in our time in government.
I am very proud of what we have done on education. I think that we have reacted in a responsible way to the RAAC situation. As I said on Monday, I recognise that the timing is terrible. I pay tribute to Mrs Hingley and her staff at Sir Thomas Boughey Academy for what they have done to ensure that their school, like so many others on the list, remains open for full face-to-face teaching today. It is not the case that children are cowering in classrooms, which was an appalling thing for the shadow Education Secretary to say. What they are doing is learning, which is what they should be doing.

Alun Cairns: It is a privilege to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate, but I must say that I am particularly disappointed by the tone with which it has started. This is a very serious issue: there are a high number of concerned  parents and teachers and headteachers who work in those buildings, and obviously, their primary concern is the children.
I would specifically point out the selective interpretation and opportunism shown by Labour Members, because they only have to look the other side of Offa’s Dyke or the Prince of Wales Bridge to see what is happening in Wales. They forget that Labour has been in power in Wales for 26 years—if that has not been sufficient time to reform education and rebuild these buildings, I do not know how long they will need. Let us remember that education in Wales is entirely devolved. That gives the Administration the freedom to survey, assess and repair buildings, and rebuild them where necessary. Labour has been in power for 26 years, but the reality is that we still do not know the state of the buildings in Wales. That is the truth of the Labour Administration.
The synthetic anger we have heard from the Labour Benches has created an awful lot of hot air, but I can direct exactly the same questions and accusations at the Administration in Wales. They have been there for 26 years, but we still do not know. Can we imagine the synthetic anger that we would hear from Labour Front Benchers, and Back Benchers, if the Secretary of State or the Minister said today, “I am sorry, but we still do not know; it is going to take another couple of weeks”? There would be understandable outrage, but Labour Members are completely ignoring the situation and the state of the education service in Wales.

Yasmin Qureshi: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about Wales. Speaking as an English MP, the BBC is reporting that at least 13 schools with RAAC were set to be rebuilt under a Labour plan, but those building projects were scrapped by the Conservative-led Government in 2010. The former Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), said that he scrapped that scheme because he did not want to “waste any more money”, and work on 700 schools was halted. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that that was an appalling thing for him to do?

Alun Cairns: With the greatest respect to the hon. Lady, I am not sure whether she is referring to Wales or to England. The point I am making is that Labour has been in power in Wales for 26 years. Two schools have been identified as having RAAC issues, but we simply do not know about the rest. There would be understandable anger and frustration if the Secretary of State or the Minister dared to come out with that response.
No Welsh Labour MP has participated in this debate, and up until now, none has even been present in the Chamber. Let us remember that the former First Minister in Wales said in relation to education that the Welsh Administration had taken their “eye off the ball”. I do not think their eye has ever been replaced on the ball, bearing in mind the standards in Wales.
Many colleagues on the Conservative Benches have listed a whole host of education outcomes and uplifts—my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) just went through a whole host of successes, and other colleagues have mentioned the number of good, excellent and outstanding schools here in England—but sadly, my constituents do not get the same benefits. Any international comparison, be it the programme for international student assessment or any other, shows that Wales has fallen back in comparison with England.
The Opposition day motion is opportunistic, as we have already highlighted, but let us at least humour it for a moment. When the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) responds for Labour, will she assure me that if my colleagues in the Welsh Senedd table this motion, Labour Members will support it? Exactly the same questions apply in Wales as in England, so I ask her to respond specifically to that question. I will happily give way if any Labour Front Benchers want to intervene now, but I notice that they are all keeping their heads down. They are frightened; I suggest that they are embarrassed to look at me, and to respond to the questions that we are raising.
The investigation started in England 18 months ago, and it started at a much later point in Wales. The reality is that we still do not know the outcome, and we have two weeks left to wait. I can imagine the anger that would be felt by Labour Members if that position was shared by my right hon. Friend the Minister. However, let us be realistic about this: new evidence comes to light and therefore new decisions need to be taken, and that is exactly what has happened in this situation. There is a whole host of Ministers, officials, teachers and parents co-ordinating efforts to make a real difference and get through this immediate challenge, much of which will be very short-term. This has been a long-standing problem, and there is a need for a whole host of quick decisions to be taken, as well as for transparency and for clarity.
Let me close my contribution with the comments of the Children’s Commissioner for Wales. This is not from any party political person, but from an independent individual appointed by the Welsh Government. She has said that the statements issued by the Welsh Government Minister so far
“don’t give families the clarity they need on what this means for them or the next steps for their school”,
and on
“what exactly will happen over the next few weeks and reassurance that schools are safe.”
That is from the Children’s Commissioner for Wales, appointed with statutory responsibility to protect the interests of children, and even she has lost faith in the decision making, transparency and clarity of the Welsh Government.
Finally, will the shadow Minister reassure me that, if my friends or colleagues in the Senedd table this motion, Labour Members will support it?

James Wild: I rise to speak in this debate because I suspect I have mentioned RAAC on the Floor of the House more times than most since I was elected. Indeed, I have been banging on about this issue since my maiden speech three and a half years ago.
My focus has been on RAAC in the health sector and hospitals, particularly the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in King’s Lynn. Unfortunately, it happens to be the most propped hospital in the country. It has many thousands of steel and timber support props in place, and they are there to keep the staff and patients safe. That failsafe work has been funded by the Government at a cost of tens of millions of pounds, as it has been in other hospitals. That demonstrates a commitment to address  RAAC issues in hospitals, as well as across the education sector, other parts of the public sector and public buildings.
I am delighted that the Health Secretary announced in May that the Queen Elizabeth Hospital and the other RAAC hospitals would be added to the new hospitals building programme, the biggest hospital building programme in history, and we will have a new hospital in King’s Lynn by 2030. That really underlines the commitment of this Government to dealing with RAAC. I have discussed this directly with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on a number of occasions, as well as with his advisers and many Ministers.
Ironically, given the issues I have had locally in the NHS, I have not been notified so far of any issues of schools being affected in my constituency of North West Norfolk. When recent events occurred Ministers responded rapidly, and that has caused concern for pupils, parents and teachers, not least given the timing, which was not of course in the Minister’s gift. I understand that concern well from my local hospital. Working around props and other support measures brings many challenges for staff and patients, as it will for teachers and pupils. Having had the new advice, work is now under way in schools to ensure that they remain safe spaces for children to learn and for staff to work. Other Members have attested to the rapid nature of the support provided by my right hon. Friend the Minister as well as by Baroness Barran and others in the Department.
In Norfolk, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) has an affected school. I know that he is supporting it to manage the issue, working closely with the Department for Education. As it and other schools across the country do that, it is right that the Chancellor has committed to spend whatever it takes to address these issues and to keep pupils safe.
We heard earlier during Prime Minister’s questions about the increased spending that he approved for maintenance in the education budget in his previous role. I welcome that, and I welcome the extra £2 billion funding this year and next, given the pressure that schools are facing. That is vital to continue the major improvements that we have seen in literacy and other standards through our reforms, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) set out so ably. I also declare an interest as a governor of a school that is part of the school rebuilding programme—a programme that will deliver 500 new schools as well as dealing with maintenance and backlog issues.
I hope that the considerable expertise that exists in the Department of Health and Social Care, the NHS, other parts of Government, and externally, is being shared and made available to schools, advisers and local authorities, as well as co-ordinated through the Cabinet Office, so that other potentially affected sectors, such as our prisons estate and courts, also benefit from it.
Of course pupils, staff and parents at affected schools are concerned, and it is important that we tackle these issues in a serious and considered manner, and not by using some of the alarmist language we have heard today that will just create unnecessary concern. I know from issues that my hospital has faced—I am a regular visitor, talking to staff—how important it is for the confidence of staff and patients that we do this in a measured and responsible way, learning from what we know about RAAC in the NHS and elsewhere, and how  we have secured it. School leaders will always put the safety of their pupils first. We should ensure that they have all the support and resources they need to do that, and that is what this Government are doing.

Anna Firth: It is only day three of a new term, yet once again we find ourselves in the position of having an Opposition day debate on an incredibly important subject that is pure politicking from the Labour party. We have not heard anything new, other than what we heard at the beginning of the week when we devoted an hour and a half to a mature and sensible debate on this matter. I would have hoped that Labour Members would have spent the long summer recess reflecting that so often these debates make things worse, not better, because they frighten the public and spread confusion and misinformation. Sadly that has not been the case, and once again, today we have heard point scoring, misinformation and scaremongering.
I believe what the public want and deserve at this point is a responsible sense of risk and proportion about this problem. We know that 156 schools have been affected by RAAC, 52 of which—one third—already have mitigation measures in place. Only 104 schools were informed this week, which is under 0.5% of the 22,500 schools across the country. Some have been closed as a precaution, including one in my constituency that I will come on to talk about. The vast majority of schools in our country are not closed, and even some of those with RAAC have not been closed in their entirety. The majority are expected to open next week.
Unlike Labour Members, I wholeheartedly applaud this Government for putting the interests of pupils, families and staff first. The absolute last thing we could possibly want is for a disaster to happen in any one of our schools, but we should not be spreading fear or exaggerating the scale of this problem. It is recklessly irresponsible to scare children by suggesting that their schools are not safe, when they overwhelmingly are—99% of schools in this country are safe, and children have gone back and are learning in them.
Over the past 13 years, this Conservative Government have invested in their schools and school buildings. We have invested £28 billion since 2010. We have invested £15 billion since 2015, to improve the safety of our schools, with priority given to those with potential safety issues. Of course we are committed to go further than that, and as a member of the Education Committee, I have a strong focus on this area. According to the Commons Library, estimated capital spending in our schools for the past financial year—2022-23—is around £6.4 billion. That is a 29% real-terms increase compared with the year before. We are also undertaking a huge rebuilding and refurbishment programme to improve over 400 of our schools, including Blenheim Primary School in Southend, which very much welcomes being part of this programme. I am looking forward to seeing spades going into the ground. If I may, I remind the Schools Minister that he would be welcome to come to Blenheim Primary School to see that new refurbishment taking place.
Let us compare our record with Labour’s record in government. Its Building Schools for the Future programme was slow, costly and substandard. That is an apt description, I would say, of the entire last Labour Government. In  2006, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment found that half the schools built by Labour were architecturally substandard, with a mere 4% being excellent. We need to understand not only exactly why RAAC was used in schools but, more importantly, how we can avoid anything like this happening in the future. We need to ask whether all the money that we are spending on remediation measures would not perhaps be spent more sensibly on rebuilding programmes. There is a range of things we need to look at, and that is why I called yesterday for a special session of the Education Committee looking into this issue. The point of that session is to learn and scrutinise, not to point fingers as the Labour party is seeking to do today.
In Essex, we are disproportionately affected by RAAC because we had such an extensive school building programme in the 1950s and 1960s. Sadly, in my constituency, the brilliant Kingsdown School is closed this week after RAAC was found in some of its buildings. Kingsdown School is the only special school in the country that has this problem, so the House will forgive me for dwelling on its issues in particular. It is waiting for three things. The first is the result of a risk assessment. The inspectors appropriately went in very quickly last week, but the school needs the results of that risk assessment if it is to open next week. It also needs emergency equipment in the form of portaloos, demountable classrooms and a portable staff room. Those things have been promised, and the sooner they are delivered, the better. The third thing is remediation measures, because these plans are short-term and the children in the school are among the most disabled, physically and mentally, in Southend, if not the south-east. This is a special school where some of the children need special feeding equipment or a special temperature. There are hoists everywhere. This is not a normal school, and these remediation measures are vital. It is a special school, and I make no apologies for arguing that it should be a special case.
I finish by applauding the work of the headmistress, Louise Robinson, who has been working around the clock along with Conservative-controlled Southend-on-Sea City Council; Councillor Helen Boyd, the cabinet member there; and Liz Hunt. They have been working hard to get things moving. The only thing that has not been helpful at all has been the press attention on this special school. The headmistress told me that she cannot pick up the telephone because the press are focusing on this school. That is appalling when one considers how anxious the parents and children must be. It is a completely inappropriate intrusion. I finish by reminding the Labour party that by calling today’s debate—

Rosie Winterton: Order. The hon. Lady has run out of time.

Sara Britcliffe: This is a concerning issue, and the amount of politicking and scaremongering of parents, teachers and pupils that the Opposition do on it worries me. Many schools and public buildings built with RAAC are characteristic of the brutalist style of architecture favoured between the ’50s and ’70s. The buildings were cheap and not built to last, and they popped up under various Governments. That shows the seemingly prevailing attitude of short-termism at the time; Governments knew it would be somebody else’s problem in the future, as indeed it is now.
It must have been the same attitude that prevailed in 1997 and 2002, when a Labour Government took no action on RAAC, despite being warned about the dangers by the Building Research Establishment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) stood at the Dispatch Box in the coalition era and criticised Labour’s Building Schools for the Future programme for often targeting the wrong schools, and in the light of this week’s evidence, it seems that he has been proven right, so I find the Opposition’s outrage quite performative. The Department for Education, as I understand it, published guidance to schools on the topic in 2018.
I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but my back has just gone. I have a problem with my back. Carry on.

Rosie Winterton: I am sorry to hear that. I will move on to the next speaker, Munira Wilson.

Munira Wilson: I do hope that the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) is okay. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House for allowing me to go and lead a Westminster Hall debate just now; that is why I was out of the Chamber for 30 minutes. The crumbling concrete crisis is one that I first raised with the Secretary of State on the Floor of the House back in January. It is extremely damaging for several reasons. It is not just because anxious parents have had to tell their children why their schools are shut, or drive them to alternative sites. It is not just because children’s learning has been disrupted yet again, with some eating lunch in marquees or going to the toilet in portacabins. It is a concrete sign of a Government who have given up on communities up and down the country.
For many families, the school is the public service that they interact with most. When parents read about crumbling concrete; when the parent-teacher association has to fundraise for basic repairs and maintenance; and when the local school’s rebuilding plans are rejected year after year, they know that the Government have let them down and taken them for granted. Just consider how that makes our young people feel. If their classroom has buckets in various corners; if they spend all day in a coat because the boiler is broken; or, worse, if their school closes altogether, the message that they hear is that they do not matter—that their education, their future, is not worth investing in.
When the announcement was made, parents looked to the Conservative Government for three things: empathy, responsibility and leadership. I am sorry to say that they have provided none of them. A Government with empathy would not put out a social media advert saying that “most schools are unaffected”. Instead, they would tell concerned parents that one school with risky RAAC was one too many.
This may be just the tip of the iceberg. Some schools in Twickenham and Richmond are awaiting surveys. Other councils are wading through the guidance and complaining that the DfE has lost the questionnaires they have sent in. Pupils just over the river from my constituency at St Paul’s Primary School in Thames  Ditton, at Langney Primary Academy in Eastbourne, or at the Royal College Manchester in Cheadle will now want the Government to give them a concrete timeline on when their at-risk buildings will be repaired.
An Education Secretary who understood collective responsibility would take the flak for her Government’s failings, not pass the buck and fish for compliments. A Prime Minister who showed leadership would listen to his officials and invest in our children. Is it “completely and utterly wrong” to blame him for the crisis? Let me ask this: who was Chancellor in 2022, when, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the three-year average spend on education capital was at its lowest since 2004? Who was Chancellor when education officials told the Treasury that it would cost £5 billion to mitigate the most serious risks of building failure, yet signed off only two thirds of that amount? Who was the Chancellor who was told to build more than 200 schools a year but approved only 50? It was the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak). These penny-pinching tactics are coming back to bite him, yet even now, the Treasury will not stump up new cash to remove the RAAC; it is putting off repairs to other dilapidated school buildings.
Every crumbling classroom stands as a concrete sign of years of Conservative neglect of our children and our communities. Of course, pupil safety is paramount and unsafe classrooms should be shut, but we should never have got to this point. This crisis was years in the making.
Liberal Democrats know that when we invest in the fabric of our schools, we invest in our children’s future. Our nurseries, schools and colleges should have been treated as critical infrastructure, yet too often with this Government, children are an afterthought. Liberal Democrats would have invested in our schools, removing risky RAAC and clearing the backlog of school repairs.
In May, I told the House:
“Neglecting school and college buildings endangers our children and may well contribute to this Government’s downfall.”—[Official Report, 23 May 2023; Vol. 733, c. 249.]
I am sorry to say, on behalf of parents, pupils and school staff, that the chickens are coming home to roost.

Rosie Winterton: Before I call the shadow Minister, I want to emphasise how important it is that those who contributed to the debate get back in good time for the wind-ups. There are those who are not here, which is discourteous to the shadow Minister.

Catherine McKinnell: This debate is incredibly important, as it gets to the heart of the responsibility that we all share to the next generation—a responsibility to give every child the best start in life, and the opportunity to thrive at school and throughout their life, and, above all, a responsibility to keep children safe. The Government are not just failing in that fundamental responsibility; worse, they are hiding—from reality, from scrutiny and from the consequences of their decisions over 13 long years. Those consequences mean that this week, children cannot go to school because their buildings are unsafe. And still the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister—and,  I have to say, hon. Members on the Government Benches—are desperately trying to pass the buck. They are refusing to be honest about the fact that they speak not just for this Government today, but for the Governments in which they have served, and on whose record they stand.
The Secretary of State has been asking for praise today, because she finally published the list of affected schools, but this is about much more than the schools on her list. It is about schools the length and breadth of this country that are not fit for our children to learn in or staff to work in. That is why our motion asks for two things. First, we are asking for the Department for Education submissions to the spending reviews in which, instead of increasing school building budgets, the Prime Minister—then Chancellor—chose to cut them. Secondly, we are asking for the correspondence on those submissions, like that released in The Observer last year, in which officials at the Department for Education warned that school buildings are a risk to life.

Alun Cairns: The hon. Lady is making a number of serious allegations. Does she apply those equally to the Welsh Government, considering that they have been in power and in charge of education for 26 years in Wales? I repeat the point I made in my contribution: would Labour Members in the Senedd support a similar motion that would achieve the same effect, if tabled by Conservative colleagues?

Catherine McKinnell: Unlike the Conservative Government in England, the Welsh Government are investing in rebuilding schools, which is why they face a different situation from the one we face. Today we are looking at history and for transparency, not for a geography lesson.
Parents and the wider public deserve to know how and why decisions were taken, such as why the number of schools that the Government are planning to rebuild each year has been cut to just 50. The Prime Minister has been looking for plaudits, but under his leadership, the Treasury almost halved the money going into school building. This week we heard the former permanent secretary say that he was shocked when the number of schools that the Government planned to rebuild each year was not increased to 300, but cut. That is what officials said was needed to keep children safe; not thriving—we are not talking about bells and whistles—but just safe.
The Prime Minister, as Chancellor, said no to the request to rebuild our schools and make them safe, just as he turned down a request to deliver a proper recovery programme for the children recovering from the pandemic. While donating to American colleges, he has condemned children in England to crumbling buildings and, now, another round of learning from home.
Conservative Members have a choice today. They can vote with us to be honest with parents, pupils and staff about the decisions the Prime Minister took and the consequences for our children, or they can stay in their “not me, guv” ranks and vote to keep parents in the dark yet again. The Prime Minister promised to lead a Government of integrity and accountability, so today, at least, they have an opportunity to make that a reality.
My hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), for Jarrow (Kate  Osborne), for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western), for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) all made incredibly powerful speeches about the importance of this issue to the children, parents and school staff in their areas. Many Conservative Members also highlighted the challenge the issue has posed in their constituencies, yet all sought to deflect the blame. That is why this debate is about taking responsibility. The speeches from my hon. Friends set out very clearly why this matters to the parents and in particular the children in our constituencies who are affected by it.
We are, of course, pleased that the Government finally published the list of schools this morning, but are they sure it is accurate? Just today we are hearing reports that schools the Secretary of State told to—if I am allowed to say it—get off their arses have in fact returned their RAAC surveys and, in some cases, have gone ahead and remedied the RAAC themselves in the absence of any support from the Government. Other schools are emerging that are not on the list but have been identified as having RAAC. There is concern, and it explains why the Secretary of State has been so reluctant to release the list. There seems to be a lot of chaos in Government, not only in the lead-up to this situation but in handling it at this stage.
I have no doubt—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has literally just walked in. I am not sure what his contribution is at this stage, but I will come on to him in a moment. I have no doubt that when the Minister of State stands up, he will, like the Secretary of State, want to talk about Labour’s record on education, so I thought I would get ahead of him. Labour in government reduced class sizes by recruiting thousands of new teachers and introduced teaching assistants to raise standards for all our children. We increased participation in post-16 education and saw record numbers progressing to university. And we had a school rebuilding programme.
Building Schools for the Future set out a pathway to rebuilding or refurbishing every secondary school in England, backed up by the primary capital programme to invest in the maintenance and repair of primary schools across the country. The last Labour Government set out a plan to transform our country’s school estate, leading to improvements in standards and behaviour and making schools a safe place for children to learn, because Labour knew then, as we know now, that children cannot get a first-class education in a second-class school.
It only took the current Levelling Up Secretary six years to admit that he regretted scrapping the Building Schools for the Future programme and cancelling over 700 school building projects, but it seems that the lessons he learned are not being passed on to his colleagues. It will therefore be for the next Labour Government to make our school estate one to be proud of once more and to make sure that every child in every corner of the country can go to an excellent local school.
I expect the Minister will also quote from the James review and tell the House about the surveys of school buildings that his Government have undertaken. When he does, perhaps he could clarify this. On 11 January this year, the Minister responded to a written question   from the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), stating that their surveys are
“visual inspections only, and do not assess the overall structural integrity of a building.”
Two days later, in response to another question from my hon. Friend, he repeated that, saying that the condition data collection is “not a safety survey”. However, less than a month later, on 7 February, he said that the survey provides a “robust evidence base” for targeting capital funding. It would be helpful if the Minister explained how both those statements can be true at the same time, and how a survey can provide a “robust evidence base” if it is not assessing safety or structural integrity. What this looks like to me is yet more chaos and contradiction from the Government.
It is becoming clearer by the day that 13 years of Conservative government have failed our children. For our school estate, they have been 13 years of cut-price sticking- plaster solutions and inefficient repairs, when green rebuilds and long-term plans were required. We have seen ageing buildings, many of which were built decades if not more than a century ago, with unmet repairs, cracked walls, asbestos, buckets placed in classrooms catching leaks and crumbling roofs. The Government’s complacency on this is unforgivable, but it is clear that they are not going to own up voluntarily to the scale of this problem or their failure.
Whether the issue is lockdown parties, speeding tickets, Government contracts or school buildings, this Government are incapable of transparency. That is why the House must force them to be transparent and to be honest with parents about the choices they made to leave the school estate crumbling around our children, because it is parents, children and school staff whose lives could be at risk—those are not my words, but the words of senior officials in the Department for Education. Last year, the Government invited bids from schools for building replacements or repairs. More than 1,000 schools applied, yet the Prime Minister proudly told us that he planned to rebuild just 500 over the next decade.
We are already seeing the impact of these short-sighted decisions on our school estate. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam has told the House that a parent in her constituency was injured when a piece of cladding fell on her. A recent freedom of information request from Schools Week found that a teacher was reportedly admitted to hospital after being hit by a falling ceiling tile at a school in Bradford. What could have happened if those events had occurred at a different time or place when there were more children in the classrooms does not bear thinking about.
Until the Government own up to their responsibility, it falls to the House to ensure that children go to schools that are safe, that teachers and staff are not put at risk, and that we are honest with the public about the decisions that have been made. For more than a decade, Conservative Governments have neglected that duty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South said in her opening speech, the defining image of 13 years of Tory government will be children cowering under the steel supports that stop the ceiling falling down. I say to the Government, “Come clean, own up, and support our motion today.”

Nick Gibb: Let me start by welcoming the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) to her new post and congratulating her once again on her—in my view—promotion to that position.
This has been a debate on an important subject, but behind all the understandable concern is one key piece of information that the House and the country need. Until last week, the advice and guidance that the Department for Education issued to schools was that if RAAC was present in a building, structural surveyors should assess it, and that if it was graded as being in a critical condition, the building should be taken out of use. Where RAAC was assessed as non-critical, the advice was to continue monitoring it, but not to take the building out of use. What happened over the summer was that the Department was made aware of three cases—one commercial and two in schools, one of which was outside England—in which RAAC that had been graded as non-critical collapsed or failed. It had become clear that visual assessment alone would not definitively identify a cracked panel that was on the verge of failure.
Given that evidence, I say this to every Member of the House: “How would your decision differ from that of the Secretary of State and Ministers at the Department for Education on the question of whether to change the guidance to require all buildings with critical and non-critical RAAC to be taken out of use? What would your decision have been, given that evidence?”. Professional advice from technical experts on RAAC has evolved over time; indeed, the question of how to manage its risks across all sectors has spanned successive Governments since 1994.
The Department for Education systematically made the sector aware of the latest guidance from technical engineers in 2018, following a sudden roof collapse at a primary school. We published a warning note, with the Local Government Association, that asked all responsible bodies to identify any properties constructed using RAAC and to ensure that RAAC properties were regularly inspected by a structural engineer. In February 2021, we issued a guide on identifying RAAC. Concerned that not all responsible bodies were acting quickly enough, in 2022 we decided to take a more direct approach. We issued a questionnaire to the responsible bodies for all 22,000 schools to ask them to identify whether they had, or suspected they had, RAAC. Responsible bodies have submitted responses to those questionnaires for 95% of schools with blocks built in the target era and we actively chased the remaining responses.
In September 2022, we started a significant programme of technical surveys, with the DfE sending a professional surveyor to assess whether RAAC was present in those schools where the responsible body had responded to the questionnaire saying that there was suspected RAAC. There are more than 22,000 schools and colleges in England, and the vast majority of them are unaffected by RAAC. To date, 52 schools and colleges have put mitigations in place. Of the 156 schools in the list we published today, 104 are providing continued face-to-face teaching for all pupils. A further 20 schools have some pupils learning off-site and 19 have delayed the start of term by a few days to ensure that pupils can start of the term in face-to-face teaching safely on site. Only a very  small number—four—have needed to move to remote education. They include St Leonard’s Catholic School in Durham, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy).
Every school and college that is impacted has a dedicated caseworker to help implement a mitigation plan. This will include using other spaces on the school site, in nearby schools or elsewhere in the local area until structural supports or temporary buildings are installed. We have increased the supply of temporary buildings, working with three contractors, and we have accelerated the installation of these. We have the support of leading utility companies to ensure that those temporary classrooms can be connected to the utilities and opened. In the small number of schools with confirmed RAAC that have disruption to face-to-face teaching, this has lasted only a matter of days in the past. We have also set up an operational hotline to ensure that Members of this House and other interested parties can, if appropriate, fast-track issues to caseworkers.
Since 2010, we have invested billions of pounds in school capital. We have created over 1 million more school places and opened over 650 new free schools, helping to drive up academic standards in some of the most disadvantaged parts of the country. We launched the priority school building programme, rebuilding or refurbishing 260 schools between 2012 and 2017. In 2015, we launched the priority school building programme 2, rebuilding or refurbishing 272 schools between 2015 and 2020. In 2020, the Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor, announced the school rebuilding programme to invest in 500 projects over the next decade for new and refurbished school buildings, prioritising buildings in the poorest condition. It is only this Government who have conducted surveys of the whole school estate, starting with the property data survey in 2012. We had the condition data collection in 2017 and now we are partway through the third survey of all our schools. It is only because of this work that we can target capital spending on rebuilding schools in the worst condition.
There have been questions from hon. Members on the details of the funding arrangements to support affected schools and colleges. To reiterate the words of the Chancellor, we will “spend what it takes” to keep children safe. That includes paying for the emergency mitigation work needed to make buildings safe, including alterations and alternative classroom space on school and college sites where necessary. Where schools need additional help with revenue costs, such as transport to other locations, we are actively engaging with every school affected to put appropriate support in place. We will also fund the longer-term refurbishment or rebuilding projects where these are needed to rectify RAAC in the longer term.
The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) complained about schools closing because of RAAC but, as I have said, only four of the 156 listed schools have actually closed. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) is right to say that it is clear this Government are taking a zero-risk approach to the safety of buildings where new evidence emerges.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) and the shadow Education Secretary, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), both raised the issue of asbestos. All schools have an  asbestos register and, if asbestos needs to be removed to put in place RAAC mitigation works, it will be removed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) correctly challenged the Opposition to say whether they think the Secretary of State has taken the right decision, and they could not answer because they know it is the right decision. He asked important and serious questions about how RAAC was allowed to be used in the first place.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) seemed very cross on behalf of his constituents but, of course, none of the 156 schools on the list we published today is in his constituency or in Liverpool. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) raised the issue of costs, and we will cover all capital costs and, subject to need, revenue costs. Schools should discuss this with the DfE.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), in a brilliant speech, was right to quote Philip Collins’s article in The Times this week, setting out how standards have risen in our schools because of Conservative policies on the curriculum and on phonics since 2010, and because of all the work done by Education Secretaries since 2010, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and for Chichester (Gillian Keegan). My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury rightly cited all the new school buildings in her constituency, as we can also see throughout the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), in a passionate speech, was right to criticise the PFI arrangements under Labour’s Building Schools for the Future programme, which we are all paying for today. In their brilliant speeches, my hon. Friends the Members for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) were both right to say that the Secretary of State has taken the right decision in the interest of safety.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) was right to contrast the swift action by this Government with the approach taken by Wales. That point was also made by the former Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns). My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) was prescient, as always on so many things, in raising in this House, on a number of occasions, the issue of RAAC in the NHS. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) spoke about Kingsdown School, and I will raise the three issues she mentioned.
Under Conservative Governments since 2010, despite the challenges of managing the aftermath of the 2007 to 2009 banking crash and the state of the public finances we inherited from the previous Government, despite the huge financial challenges of supporting the economy and household incomes during covid, and despite the energy price hike as a result of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine—despite the massive financial implications of all these challenges—we have created 1 million more school places and invested heavily in improving the quality of the school estate. We are spending record amounts on schools: £59.6 billion next year, the highest on record in cash terms, in real terms and in real terms per pupil. Standards are rising, with 88% of schools judged good or outstanding today, compared with 68% in  2010. Maths standards are rising, with England excelling in international league tables, and the reading ability of our nine-year-olds is now the fourth best of the 43 countries that test children of the same age.
We put the safety of children and staff above all else. We have proactively sought out RAAC in our schools, more comprehensively than any other jurisdiction. We have monitored the growing evidence on RAAC, and we acted swiftly and with caution for the safety of children and staff at every step. When the evidence changed, we changed our advice to schools. We are supported and funding the repairs and temporary remedies that we need to put in place in the tiny minority of schools that have been affected. That is our approach, and I urge hon. Members to back that caution and concern about the safety of our children and school staff by voting overwhelmingly against this motion tonight.
Question put.

The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 309.
Question accordingly negatived.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Environmental Protection

That the draft Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 28 June, be approved.—(Joy Morrissey.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Medicines

That the draft Human Medicines (Amendment Relating to Original Pack Dispensing) (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2023, which were laid before this House on 29 June, be approved.—(Joy Morrissey.)
Question agreed to.

Petitions

Petition - West Midlands Combined Authority

Matt Western: I rise to present this petition, which mirrors the “Warwickshire, Let’s not be Run by Brum” e-petition that I launched on my website in July 2023, currently signed by just under 1,000 people. It reflects widespread public concern about the proposals made by the west midlands Mayor Andy Street and the Conservative leader of Warwickshire County Council to annex Warwickshire and to include it under the West Midlands Combined Authority ahead of next May’s west midlands mayoral elections, which would be tantamount to naked gerrymandering. The petitioners therefore request that
“the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that Warwickshire County Council is not absorbed into the West Midlands Combined Authority.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Warwick and Leamington,
Declares that Warwickshire residents do not wish to join the West Midlands Combined Authority; further declares that that any discussions held between the West Midlands Combined Authority and Warwickshire County Council should be held openly and transparently; and that a referendum is held so the public can have their say on any proposed plans.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that Warwickshire County Council is not absorbed into the West Midlands Combined Authority.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002845]

Petition - Funding for Local Pharmacies

Judith Cummins: I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Bradford South, although I know that this issue is recognised right across the country. I have received 280 letters from constituents on this subject, reflecting the strength of feeling across Bradford, and in particular among those who are served by their local pharmacy in the area of Wyke. The petition reflects concerns across Bradford that the Government have stripped proper funding for pharmacies to act as community access points for NHS support and face-to-face healthcare support. The petitioners therefore request that
“the House of Commons urge the Government to support pharmacies as they seek to recover from the pandemic, ensuring that they can continue to provide a high standard of care to patients within the community.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the issue of the underfunding of local pharmacies is threatening their ability to continue to serve communities and areas such as Bradford South; notes that pharmacies are vital as points of access for face-to-face healthcare advice and NHS support; and further declares that access to pharmacies is vital for preventing excess pressure on GPs and hospitals across the country.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to support pharmacies as they seek to recover from the pandemic, ensuring that they can continue to provide a high standard of care to patients within the community.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002850]

Duty on Shopping: UK Entry Points

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Joy Morrissey.)

Henry Smith: I rise to speak as the Member of Parliament for Crawley, a constituency that proudly includes Gatwick airport within its boundaries, and as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the future of aviation, for which I declare an interest. It is in those roles that I have been determined to support the aviation, travel and tourism industries as they continue to recover from the covid-19 pandemic, and I call on the Government to introduce duty-free shopping on arrival at airports and international rail and ferry terminals in Great Britain.
Reinstating duty-free shopping for passengers arriving from Europe and significantly increasing inbound personal allowances upon Brexit proved popular, with a 45% increase in sales of duty-free items by UK passengers shopping overseas in our first year outside the European Union. However, British businesses and airports do not benefit from that. Passengers can spend their increased allowances abroad only at their point of departure. The introduction of duty-free on arrival stores at airports, ferry ports and international railway stations would repatriate those sales to Great Britain, crucially ensuring that British businesses are the main beneficiaries of the post-Brexit duty-free system.
I will highlight three main benefits: the effect on the recovery of the travel industry, the impact on British competitiveness, and the importance of choice and the passenger experience. On the first benefit, travel recovery and regional connectivity, I do not need to repeat to the House the full impact of the covid-19 pandemic on the aviation sector. As the sector continues to recover, we know that travel hubs need non-aeronautical revenues such as retail and duty-free. Indeed, as much as half of total airport income can come from those activities. All UK airports and international terminals will benefit from duty-free on arrival stores. The creation of new retail areas at UK airports would trigger significant capital expenditure for building works as infrastructure is adapted to take advantage of this new opportunity, resulting in further economic investment, including creating construction jobs for the duration of those projects. The increase in sales can be reinvested in new routes, improving passenger numbers and attracting more visitors, making London and regional hubs across the UK more competitive with rival cities such as Paris, Milan and Barcelona.
I draw the House’s attention to the example of Norway. Being a non-EU nation, Norway introduced duty-free on arrival stores in 2005 and there was an immediate impact on Aberdeen airport. Sales to Norwegian-bound passengers fell by 40%, with the average spend per passenger halving. The resulting growth on commercial revenues in Norway was invested in route development, which allowed it to attract new airlines by lowering charges. Norway now has the lowest aeronautical charges per passenger in the whole of Europe. More passenger growth, more income and more investment—all without the need for the Government to fund support.
The second benefit is the impact on global competitiveness. We know that more than 60 countries have now implemented duty-free on arrival, including  most major travel hubs in Asia, the middle east and Oceania, as well as fellow non-EU countries. If the EU implemented arrival duty-free stores before we did, it would have a detrimental effect on British ports of entry. European Travel Retail Confederation modelling predicts arrivals duty-free gross value added boosts would be some €300 million for Spain, €190 million for Italy and €580 million for France. Such sales would have a devastating impact on UK port departure stores. However, the UK Government could get ahead and legislate for arrivals stores first, future-proofing the sector.

Christine Jardine: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s argument. My own local airport, Edinburgh airport, would benefit greatly from duty-free arrivals—not least because, as in quite a few international airports, passengers have to go through the shopping area to get out of the airport. Therefore, in some cases there might not even be the need for capital investment. Having experienced this in Australia, it is very tempting when we arrive in a duty-free area to buy duty-free, so there would be a huge incentive for people coming to this country to buy duty-free on arrival and benefit the local economy.

Henry Smith: The hon. Lady is exactly right; I have experienced similar when travelling to Australia or closer countries such as Switzerland. The boost that that gives to those local economies is quite significant.
In this country, however, we need to act quickly. Such a plan for arrivals duty-free is under active consideration by the European Commission as part of the directorate-general for taxation and customs union’s review into travel and tourism taxation. Introducing arrivals duty-free is the only way we would be able to level the field.
The third benefit is greater choice and passenger convenience. The modern passenger has come to expect the retail element of the travel experience. Duty-free purchases on arrival will contribute to a more seamless travelling experience. Arrivals shops are a separate market in competition with departure duty-free sales from airports abroad. The lack of arrivals duty-free is placing us at a competitive disadvantage.
Arrivals duty-free is not only convenient, but popular too: polling commissioned in 2022 found 45% of travellers regard carrying duty-free items back to the UK on their flight as an inconvenience. Polling conducted at several UK airports last year found that in many areas, including my own Gatwick airport, two thirds of people would support the Government introducing such stores.
Nevertheless, I am aware that there remain concerns among those on the Treasury Bench, and I am keen to address them. The first concern from His Majesty’s Treasury, I suspect, is the revenue implications for the Exchequer. Research from York Aviation predicts that such stores will result in additional sales of £100 million each year. An increased spend of between 20% and 30% per passenger is also anticipated. I therefore ask the Government to again look at the example of Norway, where, as of 2019, duty-free on arrival sales have increased by 108% since the policy’s implementation, and are growing consistently at an average rate of more than 10% each year.
In this scenario, the initial loss of excise duties for HM Treasury is quickly offset by other forms of taxation, in addition to new jobs. At Zurich airport, for example,  the introduction of a single arrivals duty-free store meant an additional 50 jobs. For the UK, the increase in income tax and corporation tax is estimated to be an additional £50 million each year for the Exchequer. Even at the lowest levels of predicted sales, the impact on Government revenues is still likely to be only cost-neutral at worst. The policy would also increase sales on duty-paid categories.
The second concern that I suspect the Treasury has is about the impact on the domestic high street. Although I appreciate that concern, we need to be clear that the only competition to arrivals duty-free stores is from overseas departure duty-free stores. The introduction of the policy has the support of many brands that sell in the domestic market both on the high street and in travel retail channels. The size of the inbound duty-free market is less than 2.2% of the domestic market for the same products. Even if the policy were more successful than expected, any impact on the high street would be nominal. Passengers at an airport are drawn from a far wider catchment area than those in town centre stores, for example. To look again at examples from elsewhere, Switzerland and Norway have both had arrivals stores for over a decade, and neither has detected any impact on high street sales.
The third concern that I suspect the Treasury may have is about implementation. Let us be clear: in the model of arrivals duty-free stores proposed by the industry, arrivals stores would be located before customs clearance. That would avoid any additional staffing or resourcing pressures, and could provide a more robust level of control and oversight. Border Force and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs would have the opportunity to observe and audit purchases using existing mechanisms, as they do now, and monitor inbound duty-free allowance limits. As a result of Brexit, only secondary legislation will be needed for implementation, so the change would not be burdensome on the busy schedule and agenda of this House.
Let me reiterate my support for sustainable aviation fuel more broadly, and for the wider aim of the aviation sector reaching jet zero—the commitment that UK domestic aviation will achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2040.

Bill Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Rosie Winterton: Order. No. The hon. Gentleman has only just come into the Chamber. This is an Adjournment debate, and he should have been here from the beginning to intervene, as he knows.

Henry Smith: I did not notice my hon. Friend slink in behind me, but I am grateful for his moral support, Madam Deputy Speaker, even though by your order he is unable to vocalise it.
On my support for sustainable aviation, I was pleased to host and address a new industry alliance, Hydrogen in Aviation, just last night here in Parliament. The alliance is designed to help the UK lead innovation in that field. That would, along with duty-free on arrival, better support our sector. Aviation and our ports are  vital for UK trade and employment. We can do this in a cleaner, smarter way, and duty-free arrivals can play an important part for the sector.
In closing, it is clear that the introduction of arrivals duty-free stores would support economic growth and provide a timely boost to the recovery of aviation, travel and tourism from the pandemic. This plan would be funded by industry and would be at worst cost-neutral for the Exchequer. It is a low-risk policy that has already proven successful in some 65 countries around the world. There would likely be no impact on domestic high street sales, due to limited market overlap and differing customer behaviours in duty-free stores. By introducing duty-free stores on arrival, the Government can reaffirm their commitment to supporting the aviation, travel and tourism sectors, and the economic prosperity that they afford by providing employment to so many of my constituents, and to communities across the entire country. The policy is also popular with the electorate, so I hope that the Government will act swiftly to achieve this additional Brexit freedom.

Victoria Atkins: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) on securing tonight’s important debate. He brings so much experience and expertise on this issue to the Chamber, not just through his chairmanship of the APPG for the future of aviation, but as the Member of Parliament for Gatwick. I thank him very much for that. I am conscious that people outside the Chamber may be watching the debate, so let me say that what we are discussing is duty on the sale of alcohol and tobacco, which would ordinarily attract UK excise duty and VAT. My hon. Friend advocates for the removal of that duty and VAT for passengers who have entered Great Britain from outside the UK before they have reached custom-controlled entry points. I will give some background on the Government’s duty-free policy, because it is an important part of the overall picture.
In January 2021, the Government extended duty-free sales to EU-bound passengers for the first time in over 20 years, which was a significant boost to airports and international rail terminals in Great Britain. That change meant that passengers travelling from the UK to the EU were able to purchase duty-free goods once they had passed security controls at ports, airports and train stations on international routes. They also became able to purchase duty-free goods onboard international transport routes from Great Britain. As my hon. Friend said, we understand that customers find it convenient to buy their products during the flight, or to order them in advance and pick them up at the end. We are pleased that the change in policy has been a boost for UK travel hubs; indeed, I watch with close interest to ensure that the tax savings brought about by this Conservative Government are passed on to consumers, because that is important. I hope that retailers watching the debate will note the Minister’s interest in their doing the right thing and ensuring that those savings are passed on.
When we made those changes in 2021, we said that we were not considering a similar policy for arrivals, for several reasons. First, as my hon. Friend has identified, there were serious concerns about the impact on shops in the UK, whether on the high street or closer to an airport. Duty-free on departure encourages purchases in the UK that might otherwise be made abroad. That  case is less clearcut with regard to allowing customers to buy goods duty-free on arrival; that could create an unfair playing field for the domestic duty-paid retailers working either in the confines of the airport or station or beyond them.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) mentioned her local airport of Edinburgh. I am thinking of arrivals at Heathrow, where once a passenger has gone through customs, they are in the arrivals hall, and there are shops there selling products, as one would expect. I must confess that I have never tried to buy cigarettes or alcohol from those shops, so I know not what prices they would charge, but importantly, because they are on the arrivals side of the barrier, they have to charge duty and VAT on products. There might be only a few feet between those retailers selling products duty-free and others selling the very same products beyond the barrier, on the arrivals side.
Secondly, we would have to consider the need for adequate infrastructure and resourcing for the publicly funded Border Force, so that it could combat fraud, ensure compliance with requirements and enforce any charge at all entry points. In a moment, I will go into some of the duties that Border Force has at airports, but we must remember the enormous responsibility on those officers at travel hubs, and the range of offences and activities that they have to be alert to. As a former Home Office Minister, I would have to be very careful to understand how giving those officers extra responsibilities regarding the sale of duty-free alcohol and tobacco would be of wider benefit to the British public. Businesses would also need to put supporting infrastructure in place, which would be costly to them.
Finally, duty would of course be lost from those sales. We have considered very carefully the York Aviation report. My officials have briefed me on it, and we appreciate the effort that has gone into it, but we consider that the report falls into the error of overstating the size of any additional economic activity that would result from the proposal. We remain to be convinced that this change to VAT and duty policy would lead to a rise in sales of these products that would support the creation of many new jobs across the economy.

Henry Smith: Would Treasury Ministers be willing to meet industry representatives to discuss the concerns that the Minister is expressing about the impact of the policy change? Through such dialogue, we could probably find a solution that would alleviate fears across the board.

Victoria Atkins: I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend and representatives, but I must temper expectations. For a change to be made of this nature, the economic case for the entire UK economy would have to be very strongly made. He will appreciate that I receive many well intentioned suggestions on removing VAT—and other forms of tax, but particularly VAT—from products. Indeed, I think we are up to £50 billion-worth of suggestions since we regained our freedoms on leaving the EU. We have to be very clear as to the economic benefits, but I am always very happy to meet my hon. Friend.
The report also deals with the issue of jobs. Again, we remain to be convinced that, if jobs were to be created, they would be additional to the jobs already in place in the high street that involve selling alcohol and  tobacco with duty and VAT charged, as they are obliged to be charged on the UK high street. I am afraid that we do not accept the report’s conclusions.
I will give my hon. Friend a little bit more detail on the broad objectives behind duty-free on arrivals. First, we are very conscious that the duties we charge on alcohol and tobacco serve not just an economic purpose, but the critical public health objective of trying to persuade people to stop smoking, or to smoke far less, and to have a healthy relationship with alcohol. Indeed, my hon. Friend will know of the very sensible changes made to the alcohol duty regime in the Finance Act 2023 to enable products with a higher strength of alcohol to be treated differently from products with a lower alcohol content. That was done because, as I think we all acknowledge, reflecting the strength of alcohol in the duty price is a way, we hope, of helping people to make decisions about their health. Our current duty-free-on-departure policy strikes a balance between those objectives and supporting international travel, but we would have to consider carefully whether duty-free on arrival would maintain that balance.
Secondly, we ask whether displacement would occur, and whether any losses would outweigh any indirect benefits of increased economic activity. Outbound duty-free for EU passengers alone is estimated to cost around £200 million per year, primarily through displacement of duty-paid high street sales to duty-free stores. The Chancellor has been clear that it is vital that we continue to act responsibly with the public finances, so the risk of eroding tax revenues is not one we will take lightly. Finally, there is also a compliance angle. The Government would have to put measures in place to mitigate the risk of increased illicit activity, which would require the diversion of Border Force staff from other crucial areas. That includes the priorities that we rightly set for them, including matters such as illegal immigration, drug smuggling, gun smuggling, terrorism, and other serious offences. That is why we must be very careful before contemplating adding to Border Force’s responsibilities, and its vital work of protecting the nation, day in, day out, and ensuring that the law is obeyed by those who travel overseas or into our country.
Of course we keep this policy under review. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss it further, but we would need strong evidence to assure us that high-street duty-paid businesses would not be disadvantaged by a policy of duty-free on arrivals before we even considered any such changes. To reassure my hon. Friend, I asked my officials to pick up on the point that he raised about the EU contemplating changes to the system, and as far as we know, we do not believe that the EU is considering that. Of course, we will ensure that that information is up to date. I am told that as recently as 2021, the EU Parliament said that it was not considering that, but I appreciate that international politics change.
I reiterate the support that the Government have committed to the aviation industry—indeed, often at the behest of my hon. Friend during the pandemic. In May last year, we published “Flightpath to the future”, a strategic framework for the sector to build back better. Through it, we aim to make UK aviation cleaner, greener and more competitive than ever before. The framework explores key issues, including workforce  and skills, connectivity, global impact, innovation and decarbonisation. I note with interest those parts of my  hon. Friend’s speech concerning different types of fuel for the airline industry. That is the sort of work that we wish to help the aviation industry with and, more particularly, to develop in the UK as far as possible.
In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend for his speech. I reiterate that we have considered this matter carefully, but we must prioritise our responsibilities for the public   finances. That is why we do not feel able at this point to agree to the suggestion, but I am happy to keep the issue under review, and to meet him to discuss it further.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.